Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Authority 2017.pdf
Authority Meeting #1/17 was held in the Weston Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 25, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 10:36 a.m. PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Member Jack Ballinger Member Ronald Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Member Chris Fonseca Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Ron Moeser Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT David Barrow Member Jennifer Drake Member Paula Fletcher Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Linda Pabst Member O Canada was performed by Lindsey Stradwick, Event Supervisor, Kortright Centre for Conservation, TRCA. ______________________________ 1 APPOINTMENTS TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FOR 2017-2018 The Secretary-Treasurer can advise that all the persons listed below have been duly appointed and are entitled to sit as Members of this Authority for the 2017-2018 year, or until their successors are appointed. ADJALA-TOSORONTIO/MONO Glenn Mason DURHAM Kevin Ashe Jack Ballinger Colleen Jordan TORONTO Maria Augimeri Ronald Chopowick Vincent Crisanti Glenn De Baeremaeker Jennifer Drake Paula Fletcher Michael Ford Jim Karygiannis Maria Kelleher Giorgio Mammoliti Mike Mattos Jennifer McKelvie Ron Moeser Anthony Perruzza PEEL Chris Fonseca Jennifer Innis Matt Mahoney John Sprovieri Jim Tovey YORK David Barrow Michael Di Biase Jack Heath Linda Pabst Gino Rosati ______________________________ 2 The meeting was turned over to Kathy Stranks, Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat, to conduct the elections. RES.#A1/17 - APPOINTMENT OF SCRUTINEERS Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Mr. Bob Rossow and Jonathan Wigley, Partners, Gardiner Roberts LLP and Kathy Stranks, Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat, TRCA, be appointed as scrutineer for the election of officers, if required. CARRIED ______________________________ CHAIR OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Maria Augimeri was nominated by Glenn De Baeremaeker. RES.#A2/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT nominations for the office of Chair of the Authority be closed. CARRIED Maria Augimeri was declared elected by acclamation as Chair of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. ______________________________ VICE CHAIR OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Jack Heath was nominated by Glenn De Baeremaeker. RES.#A3/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT nominations for the office of Vice Chair of the Authority be closed. CARRIED Jack Heath was declared elected by acclamation as Vice Chair of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. ______________________________ 3 REGION OF DURHAM REPRESENTATIVE ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Jack Ballinger was nominated by Kevin Ashe. Colleen Jordan was nominated by Kevin Ashe. RES.#A4/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Ron Moeser THAT nominations for the Region of Durham representative on the Executive Committee be closed. CARRIED Colleen Jordan and Jack Ballinger were declared elected by acclamation as a Region of Durham representatives on the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/19. ______________________________ REGION OF PEEL REPRESENTATIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Jennifer Innis was nominated by Jim Tovey. Chris Fonseca was nominated by Jim Tovey. RES.#A5/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT nominations for the Region of Peel representatives on the Executive Committee be closed. CARRIED Jennifer Innis and Chris Fonseca were declared elected by acclamation as the Region of Peel representatives on the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/19. ______________________________ REGION OF YORK REPRESENTATIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Michael Di Biase was nominated by Jack Heath. RES.#A6/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Jack Heath 4 THAT nominations for the Region of York representatives on the Executive Committee be closed. CARRIED Michael Di Biase was declared elected by acclamation as the Region of York representative on the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/19. ______________________________ CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mike Mattos was nominated by Maria Augimeri. Vincent Crisanti was nominated by Glenn De Baeremaeker. Glenn De Baeremaeker was nominated by Mike Mattos. Anthony Perruzza was nominated by Glenn De Baeremaeker. Jennifer McKelvie was nominated by Maria Augimeri. RES.#A7/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT nominations for the City of Toronto representatives on the Executive Committee be closed. CARRIED Mike Mattos, Vincent Crisanti, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Anthony Perruzza and Jennifer McKelvie were declared elected by acclamation as City of Toronto representatives on the Executive Committee, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/19. ______________________________ REGION OF DURHAM REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD Jack Ballinger was nominated by Kevin Ashe. RES.#A8/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT nominations for the Region of Durham representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board be closed. CARRIED Jack Ballinger was declared elected by acclamation as the Region of Durham representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/19. ______________________________ 5 REGION OF PEEL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD Jim Tovey was nominated by John Sprovieri. RES.#A9/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT nominations for the Region of Peel representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board be closed. CARRIED Jim Tovey was declared elected by acclamation as the Region of Peel representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/19. ______________________________ REGION OF YORK REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD Gino Rosati was nominated by Michael Di Biase. RES.#A10/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT nominations for the Region of York representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board be closed. CARRIED Gino Rosati was declared elected by acclamation as the Region of York representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/19. ______________________________ CITY OF TORONTO REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD Ronald Chopowick was nominated by Maria Augimeri. RES.#A11/17 - MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT nominations for the City of Toronto representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board be closed. 6 CARRIED Ronald Chopowick was declared elected by acclamation as the City of Toronto representative on the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, for a term to end at Annual Meeting #1/19. ______________________________ RES.#A12/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT the Minutes of Meeting #11/16, held on January 27, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 7 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A13/17 - APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS The Conservation Authorities Act requires each conservation authority to undergo an external audit of its accounts and transactions each year. Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT KPMG LLP be appointed auditors of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the year 2017, in accordance with section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act. CARRIED BACKGROUND Section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act reads as follows: 38. (1) Every authority shall cause its accounts and transactions to be audited annually by a person licensed under the Public Accountancy Act . R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (1). (2) No person shall be appointed as auditor of an authority who is or during the preceding year was a member of the authority or who has or during the preceding year had any direct or indirect interest in any contract or any employment with the authority other than for services within his or her professional capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (2). (3) An authority shall, upon receipt of the auditors report of the examination of its accounts and transactions, forthwith forward a copy of the report to each participating municipality and to the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (3). At Authority Meeting #8/16, held on October 28, 2016, Resolution #A175/16 was approved, in part, as follows: THAT KPMG LLP be appointed auditor of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the year 2016, in accordance with section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act; THAT the term of the engagement be limited to five years subject to annual appointments by the Authority based on satisfactory performance;... RATIONALE Although the contract period with KPMG LLP is for five years starting with 2016, the annual appointment of auditors at the TRCA annual meeting is a requirement as per Section 7.1 of TRCA’s Rules of Conduct as follows: 7.1 The appointment of auditors and the election of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Authority shall be held at the Annual Meeting of the Authority in each year; 8 As such, staff is recommending that KPMG LLP be appointed auditors for TRCA for 2017. 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: January 24, 2017 ______________________________ 9 RES.#A14/17 - PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto Participating Municipalities Approval of the Project. Update on the approval process by the participating municipalities, for the construction of an administrative office building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) participating municipalities be recognized and thanked for their support of the Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to report back to the Authority upon response from the Province of Ontario. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/16, held on June 24, 2016, Resolution #A85/16 approved the construction of an administrative office building for TRCA, at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto (Project) and directed staff to take the necessary action to complete the Project, including the submission of formal requests for approval to the participating municipalities and the Province of Ontario. RATIONALE TRCA’s six participating municipalities, by way of their respective Councils, have approved the Project and funding contributions described in the Project as follows. Municipality Project Approval Date Total Project Contribution Over 33 Years Adjala-Tosorontio September 12, 2016 $4,020 Durham February 8, 2017 $1,694,820 Mono August 23, 2016 $4,800 Peel September 22, 2016 $6,823,980 Toronto February 15, 2017 $38,617,260 York December 15, 2016 $12,855,120 TOTAL $60,000,000 At Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Council on September 12, 2016, Resolution #16-210 was approved as follows: THAT Treasury Report #2016-19 dated September 12th, 2016 regarding “TRCA Administrative Office Building Project” be received; and further, 10 THAT Council supports the construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto as outlined in Appendix “A” report titled new Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and further, THAT funding contributions representing the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio portion of the debt for the Administrative Office Building be provided within the annual levy payment to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as approved through the annual budget process for the duration of the debt as outlined in Appendix “A” report. At Region of Durham Council on February 8, 2017, Resolution 2017-COW-31 was approved as follows: That the Region of Durham support the construction of an Administrative Office Building for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto as outlined in Attachment #1 to Report #2017-COW-31 of the Commissioner of Finance, subject to confirmed support and financial commitment from the other TRCA member municipalities; and That the Region of Durham’s financial contribution of $1,694,847 to the project be funded as follows: - The annual payment of $14,124 for the first 21 years (2017 through 2037) be funded from within TRCA’s existing funding envelope; and - The annual payment of $42,371 for 33 years (2017 through 2049) be funded through an increase to TRCA’s special benefiting program. At Township of Mono Council on August 23, 2016, Resolution #10-12-2016 was approved as follows: THAT support for the construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto as outlined in the report titled new Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, be confirmed; AND FURTHER THAT, funding contributions representing Mono’s portion of the debt for the Administrative Office Building be approved within the Special Levy payment to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as approved through the annual budget process for the duration of the debt as outlined in this report; AND FURTHER THAT, a copy of this resolution be sent to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. At Region of Peel Council on September 22, 2016, Resolution #2016-716 was approved as follows: THAT support for the construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto, as outlined in the report of the Commission of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, titled “Toronto and Region Conservation Authority New Administrative Office Building”, be confirmed; 11 AND FURTHER, that funding contributions representing the Region of Peel’s portion of the debt for the Administrative Office Building be provided within the Special Levy payment to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, as approved through the annual budget process for the duration of the debt, as outlined in the subject report; AND FURTHER, that a copy of this report and resolution be sent to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. At City of Toronto Council on February 15, 2017, recommendation 2W under the 2017 Capital and Operating Budgets was approved as follows: The Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer recommends that: 1. City Council endorse the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority plan to construct a new administrative office building on land it currently owns, with a total project cost of $70 million, requiring $60 million in debt financing to be arranged by the TRCA and funded by its member municipalities as follows: $10.5 million over 21 years that is currently available within all member municipality Operating and/or Capital Budgets); and $49.5 million over 33 years which includes the City share of $38.617 million. 2. A new capital project titled "TRCA Long Term Accommodation Project" with a total project cost of $38.617 million be included in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's 2017 Preliminary Capital Budget and 2018-2026 Capital Plan to fund the City of Toronto portion of the project over 33 years, with annual cash flows of $0.322 million from 2017 to 2022 and $1.502 million from 2023 to 2026 and until its completion in 2037. a. the funding of $0.322 million from the planned project titled "Major Facilities Retrofit" be reallocated in 2017 to the “TRCA Long Term Accommodation Project” toward the construction of the new facility for a period of 21 years from 2017 to 2037; b. $1.180 million of the additional $2.0 million of debt capacity available in the Year 2023 for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be used for this purpose and continue through to 2037; 3. After the new facility’s completion, and commencing in 2038, the funding of $0.322 million as identified in (c) be redirected back to the "Major Facilities Retrofit" capital project to continue funding based on its original purpose; and 4. City Council authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into any documents and agreements necessary to give effect to Recommendation 1 above and to take the necessary action to give effect to this report and provide documentation of City support. At Region of York Council on December 15, 2016, Clauses 5 in Report No. 19 of Committee of the Whole was approved, in part, as follows: …4. The Committee of the Whole support the construction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) new administrative headquarters and associated multi-year commitment, subject to the following: 12 (a) TRCA manage the proposed expenditures from within current funding levels for 2017 and 2018. (b) Confirmed contribution for a majority of the required project funding from all of the major TRCA member municipalities and other contributors. 5. The Committee of the Whole note that funding for the project will be included as part of TRCA budgets beyond 2018 and that thetotal amount of funding for the TRCA will be determined in the annual budget process. FINANCIAL DETAILS Participating municipalities have approved the allocation of $60,000,000 in new and existing capital funding toward the Project. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will prepare and submit a formal request to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry for approval of the Project and a rate of interest. Ministry staff previously recommended that TRCA wait to submit their formal request for Project approval until all the participating municipalities had agreed to the Project and funding contributions. Staff will report to the Authority upon response from the Province of Ontario. Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach@trca.on.ca Date: February 16, 2017 ______________________________ 13 RES.#A15/17 - THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Request from The Regional Municipality of York for the Conveyance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned Lands Required for the Widening of Major Mackenzie Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed, CFN 57186. Receipt of a request from The Regional Municipality of York for the conveyance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned lands required for the widening of Major Mackenzie Drive, between Islington Avenue and Pine Valley Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B131/16) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from The Regional Municipality of York for conveyance of TRCA-owned lands required for the widening of Major Mackenzie Drive, between Islington Avenue and Pine Valley Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with The Regional Municipality of York in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA-owned land containing 3.48 hectares (8.60 acres), more or less, required for the widening of Major Mackenzie Drive, between Islington Avenue and Pine Valley Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, said land being Part of Road Allowance between Concessions 7 and 8, Part of Lot 20, Concession 7 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 8, designated as Part 12 on Plan 65R-35104; Part of Lot 20, Concession 7, designated as Part 6 on Plan 65R- 35105; and Part of Road Allowance between Concessions 7 and 8, Part of Lot 21, Concession 8 and Part of Block 168, Registered Plan 65M-3278, designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 on Plan 65R-35106, be conveyed to The Regional Municipality of York; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs to be paid by The Regional Municipality of York; THAT The Regional Municipality of York is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this conveyance or the carrying out of construction; THAT The Regional Municipality of York, at its sole expense, maintain safe ingress/egress during construction, improve driveways and localized drainage and provide appropriate signage for hidden driveways for all tenants on the Ontario Heritage Trust property which is being managed by TRCA; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of The Regional Municipality of York; 14 THAT a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval, in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by The Regional Municipality of York prior to the commencement of construction; THAT said conveyance be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A16/17 - CANADA 150 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Project Approval. Board authorization of projects approved for funding by the Canada 150 Infrastructure Program (CIP 150) Intake Two. (Executive Res.#B132/16) Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Gino Rosati WHEREAS in December 2016, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) received funding approval from FedDev Ontario, Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program (CIP 150) for the following projects: Improvement of the Beach Centre Septic System at Albion Hills Conservation Area; Kortright Visitors' Centre Improvements; BCPV Building Envelope, Lighting, and HVAC Improvements; Expansion of the Tommy Thompson Park Wetland Trail; AND WHEREAS projects approved for funding must be duly authorized or endorsed by a resolution of the Authority; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the aforementioned projects approved for funding by FedDev Ontario be approved in principle; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report to the Authority for additional approvals as required. CARRIED ______________________________ 15 RES.#A17/17 - LOCUST HILL SCHOOL HOUSE – 8949 REESOR ROAD Stabilization and Remedial Repairs. Award of Contract #10003342 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for required stabilization and remedial repairs at Locust Hill School House, in the City of Markham. (Executive Res.#B133/16) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Ron Moeser THAT Contract #10003342 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for required stabilization and remedial repairs at Locust Hill School House, in the City of Markham, be awarded to BRC Restoration Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $296,000.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 25% as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A18/17 - APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORIZED SIGNING OFFICERS Banking and Financial Services. Recommends changes to the designation of authorized signing officers. (Executive Res.#B134/16) Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s Signing Officers policy be amended as follows: THAT for purposes of banking and financial services, documents relating to sale and disposal of interests in property and other significant documents as may be determined by the Chief Executive Officer, the following be designated as authorized signing officers: (i) Any one of the Chair or Vice Chair, together with any one of the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat, Deputy Chief Financial Officer or Controller; CARRIED 16 Section IV - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A19/17- ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended item 13.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #12/16, held on February 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ PRESENTATIONS 15.1. Years of Service Awards to Members. 15.2. A presentation by Ryan Ness, Senior Manager, Research and Development, TRCA, in regard to The Living City Report Card Update. 15.3. Announcement of the New Head Office by Brian Denney, Chief Executive Officer, TRCA. 15.4. Year in Review Slideshow. RES.#A20/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT above-noted presentations 15.1 – 15.4 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:43 a.m., on Friday, February 24, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer 17 Authority Meeting #2/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, March 24, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:39 a.m. PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ron Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Di Biase Member Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Colleen Jordan Member Maria Kelleher Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member ABSENT Paula Fletcher Member Michael Ford Member Jennifer Innis Member Jim Karygiannis Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member Jim Tovey Member RES.#A21/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/17, held on February 24, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 18 PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Years of Service Awards to Staff 5.2 A presentation by Michael Tolensky, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, TRCA, in regard to item 9.1.1 - 2017 Budget, Operating and Capital. RES.#A22/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT above-noted presentations 5.1 and 5.2 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ CORRESPONDENCE 6.1 A letter dated March 15, 2017 from Ms. Brigette Sopher, of Whitevale Park and Marsh Committee in regard to Package 10 of the Seaton Development. RES.#A23/17 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT above-noted correspondence 6.1 be referred to staff for a report at the next Authority meeting. CARRIED 19 Wednesday, March 15, 2017 Dear Chair and members of the TRCA Board, On October 5, 2015, the City of Pickering Planning Department presented to council the draft plan for subdivision (City File SP2015-06) and proposed amendment of Zoning by-law 3037 (City File A11/15) requested by the Province, through Infrastructure On- tario. It involved the area of neighbourhood 18, part of package 10 of the Infrastructure Ontario Seaton Land sale and it included the former quarry and open spaces immedi- ately north of Whitevale (see attached map1). In early 2016, the Whitevale Nature Park and Marsh Committee was formed under the umbrella of the WDRA, with the objective of preserving as large a portion of the former quarry as possible. After consultation with local residents, City of Pickering planners, other experts in the field (urban planners, landscape architects, environmental experts), and municipal, as well as provincial and federal representatives, the committee sharp- ened its focus on preserving the lower area of the former quarry, occupied by water courses and wetlands and in very close proximity to the Seaton trail. This area is now a living ecosystem. Small ponds and marshes discharge into a creek that makes its way into West Duffins, a fresh watercourse well-known among fishermen for its pure and cold water, where trout and salmon spawn every year. We are proposing the preservation of this area that will include the wetlands and will of- fer a loop to the Seaton trail, a trail head with added parking to complement the com- munity park parking lot, and a small wooded area planted with native species. It will be an opportunity for community involvement for both new and old residents. (see map2). This public-owned land is already linked to the valley of West Duffins and offers an op- portunity for conservation and recreational use that many of the fragmented Seaton green spaces do not provide. We know that TRCA staff have found numerous issues in the application (weak hydro- geology and Low Impact Design information; ecological component missing; stormwa- ter pond not well designed). Further studies are needed. We believe that resolving this situation before it is too late is congruent with your mission “to ensure that The Living City is built on a natural foundation of healthy rivers and shorelines, green space and biodiversity, and sustainable communities (and) to share expertise in sustainable com- munity development to advise partners about land use, development proposals and construction.” In consequence, while waiting for further studies, we are asking you to recommend that IO remove this land from Package 10 and keep it in public hands to allow for the preservation of this natural area and its wetlands. Respectfully, Brigitte Sopher Whitevale Park and Marsh Committee CORRESPONDENCE 6.1 20 MAP 1 21 Wetland Park MAP 2 Possible Trailhead 22 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A24/17 - SUPPLY OF OPERATED HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND DUMP TRUCKS Contract #10003497, Award of Contract #10003497 for the supply of operated heavy construction and associated specialty equipment from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of environmental initiatives that require the utilization of operated heavy and specialty construction equipment; AND WHEREAS in January 2017, TRCA pre-qualified seven contractors through a publicly advertised process based on experience with a range of environmental construction and restoration works; AND WHEREAS the pre-qualified contractors were invited to submit tenders for various pieces of heavy construction and specialty equipment that was subsequently evaluated based on price, availability of equipment, key personnel and relevant experience; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TMI Contracting Limited and Sartor Environmental Group be recognized as the primary and secondary suppliers, respectively, for operated heavy construction equipment during the contract period, being the two highest ranking suppliers meeting TRCA’s requirements at a competitive cost; THAT where the vendors of record are not available for a particular project, staff be authorized to use the next highest ranked suppliers; THAT specialty operated equipment in Schedule B be awarded on an as–needed basis as required, beginning with the most competitively priced first; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RATIONALE Request for Pre-Qualification (RFPQ) for general contractors for Contract #10003497 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on Monday, December 19, 2016. Interested general contractors in pre-qualifying were advised that the criteria for evaluation would include the following in order to receive a tender package: Completeness of submission; Contractor’s experience with bank/slope stabilization project, shoreline protection, construction of armourstone retaining walls, habitat enhancement/regeneration projects, demolition projects, infrastructure protection projects, waterfront development project; Ability to meet current Occupational Health and Safety standards; Pre-qualification information was submitted by the following 11 general contractors: Four Seasons Site Development; 23 Dynex Construction; Sartor Environmental Group Inc; Gray’s Landscaping & Snow Removal; Rutherford Contracting; Vic Priestly Contracting; Euro Landscape Construction; Pacific Paving Ltd; TMI Contracting Ltd; Trisan Construction; and Valefield Contracting Inc. The pre-qualifying documents were reviewed by the selection committee made up of TRCA staff, whose evaluation was based on the previously defined criteria and reference checks for past completed projects. Request for Tender documents required the pre-qualified suppliers to submit prices for two schedules of operated equipment. Schedule A is comprised of the traditional heavy operated equipment most commonly required for TRCA projects; Schedule B is comprised of specialty equipment that is required less frequently, and which is often rented or subcontracted at a higher cost. The purpose of separating this equipment into two Schedules is to allow TRCA to obtain the most competitive pricing for all its equipment needs, by awarding the work involving specialty equipment on as needed-basis, to the most competitively priced pre-qualified bidder when required. Along with rates for Schedule A and B equipment, a detailed proposal describing key personnel and relevant work experience was also listed as a requirement of the tender process. Based on the evaluation process, Request for Tender documents were made available to the following seven general contractors: Four Seasons Site Development; Rutherford Contracting; Dynex Construction; Sartor Environmental Group Inc; TMI Contracting Ltd; Trisan Construction; and Valefield Contracting Inc. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders on February 17, 2017; the unit rates submitted by each bidder for Schedule A and B are presented in Attachment 1. The results show that based on price alone, TMI Contracting Limited is the most competitively priced overall for Schedule A equipment and that Sartor Environmental Inc. is the second most competitively priced for the same operated equipment. For Schedule B equipment, it can be seen in Attachment 1 that when it is a discrete service (i.e., where the equipment is not required in conjunction with Schedule A equipment), it is most financially advantageous to award this work on as-needed basis to the most competitively priced pre-qualified bidder. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (James Dickie, Moranne McDonnell, Norman Pires, Brook Piotrowski and Mike Puusa) reviewed proposals based on a weighted scoring system consisting of 80% based on the technical review of the proposal and the remaining 20% on the reasonableness of cost. The criteria used to evaluate the submissions and to select the recommended consultant included the following: 24 experience related to bank/slope/channel stabilization project, including armourstone retaining walls, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) slopes, drainage channels, revetments and buttresses; experience related to waterfront development and remedial shoreline protection, including lakefilling, placement of rip rap, armourstone headlands, groynes and breakwaters; experience related to habitat enhancement and regeneration projects, including wetlands, meadows, natural channels, trail development; experience related to infrastructure construction and protection works including bridge removal/installation, sanitary sewer encasement, headwall construction/repair; experience related to site remediation and reclamation including building demolitions and large soil excavation and filling operations; availability and quantity of requested equipment; expertise and availability of key personnel listed within the Tender; and reasonableness of cost. The results of the evaluation are as follows: General Contractor Weighted Score (out of 100) TMI Contracting Ltd. 88 Sartor Environmental Group Inc. 87 Dynex Construction 77 Trisan Construction 62 The results of the evaluation determined that the technical proposal and hourly rates submitted by TMI Contracting Ltd. and Sartor Environmental Inc. were the most competitive having the lowest hourly rates on the majority of the specified equipment and the most experience in the type of construction projects that TRCA undertakes. Furthermore, TMI Contracting Ltd. and Sartor Environmental Inc. have implemented numerous projects successfully with TRCA and are capable of addressing TRCA’s operated heavy equipment needs for the next 12 months. Staff therefore recommends awarding Contract #10003497 to TMI Contracting Ltd. and Sartor Environmental Group Inc. as the primary suppliers for operated heavy construction equipment during the contract period, they being the two highest ranking suppliers meeting TRCA’s requirements at a competitive cost. Where the vendors of record are not available for a particular project or where a project requires specific expertise in a particular area, staff also request authorization to use the next highest ranked suppliers possessing the necessary equipment and/or expertise. The need to utilize the next highest ranking suppliers will be dependent on the type of work to be undertaken, as each contractor specializes in the different criteria outlined within the proposals, however it is to TRCA's advantage to cultivate additional suppliers that can meet the needs of TRCA's unique and specialized projects, particularly in light of the increasing volume of work in recent years. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of this contract is estimated to be approximately $5,000,000 based upon a review of projects scheduled for implementation during the contract period. Based on each suppliers’ available resources, the work is anticipated to be awarded roughly equally between both suppliers with Sartor Environmental being given first opportunity to supply for waterfront projects where the evaluation process has demonstrated significant experience over TMI Contracting Limited. 25 An increase or decrease in workload will have an impact on the value of this contract. All pre-qualified suppliers understand both the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. The operated equipment is rented on an 'as required' basis with no minimum hours guaranteed. Funds for the contract are identified in TRCA's 2017 and 2018 capital budgets. Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: mmcdonnell@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: mmcdonnell@trca.on.ca Date: March 2, 2017 Attachments: 2 26 Attachment 1 **Unofficial Bid Results** SCHEDULE A Contract No. 10003497 Supply of Rental Rates for Operated Heavy Construction Equipment & Dump Trucks BIDDERS Front End Loader Front End Loader- 4WD Rubber Mounted Rock Truck Dump Truck (Tri-Axle) 60 KW 100 KW 140 KW 21,000 KG 24,500 KG 24,500 KG including swivel bucket 40,000 KG 14,000 KG 23,000 KG 32,000 KG Sartor Environmental Group Inc. $66.00 $84.00 $110.00 $92.00 $89.50 $102.00 $114.00 $98.00 $95.00 $79.50 Dynex Construction Inc.$105.00 $120.00 $166.00 $150.00 $120.00 $120.00 $140.00 $128.00 $145.00 $100.00 TMI Contracting $69.95 $80.00 $89.00 $89.00 $87.50 $118.00 $90.00 $85.00 $87.50 $90.00 Trisan Construction $123.00 $133.00 $143.00 $148.00 $173.00 $194.00 $254.00 $123.00 $277.00 $110.00 Tractor Bulldozers Crawler Hydraulic Backhoe 27 Attachment 2 **Unofficial Bid Results** SCHEDULE B Contract No. 10003497 Supply of Rental Rates for Operated Heavy Construction Equipment & Dump Trucks BIDDERS Skidsteers Hydraulic Backhoe 50,000 KG 24,500 KG Long Arm Mini Excavator (1,700 KG minimum operating weight) Mini Excavator (14,700 KG minimum operating weight) Gradall - Rubber Tire (14,800 minimum operating weight) Hydraulic Backhoe / 6 way blade(15,000 KG minimum operating weight) Rubber Track Skidsteer (1,700KG minimum operating weight) Track Carrier (1,200KG minimum operating weight) Track Carrier (9,000KG minimum operating weight) Off Road Dump Truck (34,000KG minimum operating weight) Smooth Drum Roller (7,200KG minimum operating weight) Smooth Drum Roller (10,800KG minimum operating weight) Padfoot Roller (7,600KG minimum operating weight) 4WD Tractor with Loader/ Backhoe Combo Rock Truck 14,000 KG Dump Truck (Tandem Rear Axle) Front End Loader 13,500 KG Low Boy Float Sartor Environmental Group Inc. $124.00 $114.00 $85.00 $90.00 NA NA $85.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA $72.50 NA $70.00 $74.00 $105.00 Valefield Contracting Inc.NA NA NA NA NA $93.00 $88.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Dynex Construction Inc.NA NA $79.91 $110.00 NA NA $96.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA TMI Contracting $120.00 $117.50 $65.00 $78.00 NA $95.00 $69.75 $87.50 NA NA $60.00 $65.00 $65.00 $75.00 NA NA NA $105.00 Trisan Construction $274.00 $289.00 $110.00 $110.00 $214.00 $231.00 $92.00 $231.00 $404.00 $347.00 $87.00 $91.00 $87.00 $50.00 $185.00 $98.00 $123.00 $110.00 Off Road Trucks and Track Carriers Vibratory RollersExcavators 28 RES.#A25/17 - GUILD PARK AND GARDENS BOARDWALK TRAIL PROJECT Contract #10003595 Design-Build Services for Construction of a Boardwalk Structure. Award of Contract #10003595 for engineering and construction services for two sections of boardwalk at Guild Park and Gardens, in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Contract #1003595 be awarded to CSL Group Limited for engineering and construction services for two boardwalk trail structures at Guild Park and Gardens, in the City of Toronto, at a total cost not to exceed $382,590.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Guild Park and Gardens is a 36 hectare destination park owned by TRCA and managed by the City of Toronto. This property is comprised of rich cultural heritage resources in a cultural landscape structure flanked by extensive, high quality natural heritage systems. The Park is set on the geologically significant landform of the Scarborough Bluffs. Guild Park and Gardens is also an important destination for family-friendly, passive recreation and trail use by a broader catchment area. Guild Park and Gardens has been assessed as part of an overall Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) study within the City of Toronto. Guild Park is identified as ESA #35, including tableland with Bluffs along the southern edge. The ESA designation is based on the site’s habitat for vulnerable, rare, or threatened species and its vulnerable, rare, threatened, or endangered communities. In November 2014, the City of Toronto completed the Management Plan for Guild Park and Gardens. The purpose of the Plan is to provide the City of Toronto with a comprehensive framework to guide the management of the Guild Park and Gardens. The management plan establishes a strategy to help guide the protection, restoration and enhancement of the special character of Guild Park and Gardens. The management plan document, listed key objectives to improve trail sustainability, reduce the environmental impacts of trails, improve trail user experience and accessibility, reduce trail hazards, and improve public safety. The trails in need of improvement have been targeted by the City of Toronto, and are in wet areas that become impassable with seasonal wetness or after storm events. 29 In 2016, City of Toronto’s Urban Forestry – Natural Environment and Community Programs Section requested TRCA Restoration and Infrastructure staff to undertake the planning and construction of wood boardwalk structures on selected wet trails within the park in order to improve surface trail conditions and reduce associated trampling impacts within environmentally sensitive areas. The construction of raised boardwalk was specified in order to reduce potential erosion issues and avoid alterations to surface hydrology within the site. It has been identified by TRCA and City of Toronto staff that two sections of boardwalk trail will need to be constructed. The first section of boardwalk will be approximately 174 metres in length, and will be required to support a light maintenance vehicle. The second section of boardwalk will be approximately 197 metres in length, and will be for pedestrian use only. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted in October 2016 along the proposed boardwalk alignment, and recovered no significant cultural material. A geotechnical investigation was completed in December 2016, to inform the development of detailed designs. At this time, staff requires engineering and construction services of a qualified contractor to carry out the detailed design, fabrication and construction of the required boardwalk structures, with the expectation for construction to be completed in 2017. RATIONALE TRCA and the City of Toronto have worked cooperatively on trail infrastructure and trail improvement projects for many years. Many existing trails and trail infrastructure projects on City-owned and managed lands were constructed by TRCA, and there is value to the City in having TRCA provide services that reduce environmental impacts and health and safety concerns in a prompt, cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner. TRCA is able to provide effective management of natural environment projects using their highly specialized expertise and ability to expedite approvals, facilitate community involvement, and satisfy sensitive environmental standards. Recognizing TRCA's value as a partner of choice in environmental protection and restoration, Schedule A of Chapter 71, Financial Control, of the Toronto Municipal Code, permits TRCA to deliver specific capital projects on the City's behalf. The work described herein under Tender #10003595 is in compliance with the Schedule A requirements. Tender #100033595 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website www.biddingo.com on Friday, January 13, 2017 with a mandatory site information meeting held on Friday, January 20, 2017. Tender packages were provided to 29 contractors as follows: Aesthetics Group Black & McDonald - Scarborough CSL Group Ltd. Dougan And Associates Dynex Construction Inc. EXP Services Inc. F.D. Fountain Landscape Architecture Foundation Supportworks of Ontario Grays Landscaping Snow Removal Inc. Green Earth Canada Contracting Ltd. Hamilton-Halton Construction Association Hank Deenen Landscaping Ltd. International Landscaping Inc. 30 Iron Bridge Fabrication Inc. J. Kennedy Trenching & Excavating Ltd. o/a Durham Topsoil & GardenSupplies M&E General Contracting Inc. Masters Insurance Ltd. McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd Melrose Paving Co. Ltd. Metric Contracting Services Corporation Moon-Matz Ltd. Mopal Construction Ltd. Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. R & M Construction R-CHAD General Contracting Inc. Signature Contractors Windsor Inc. T2 Utility Engineers Inc. Valefield Contracting Inc WSP Canada Inc. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders on Tuesday, February 14, 2017 with the following results: BIDDERS Total Cost (Plus HST) CSL Group Ltd. $382,590.00 McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd $709,993.00 Metric Contracting Services Corporation $1,007,688.00 Each bidder was requested to provide a detailed proposal with their bid submission based on TRCA's concept design and specifications provided within the Tender package. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Brian Bertrand, Steve Joudrey and Matt Kenel) reviewed the bidders detailed proposals and evaluated them using the following weighted scoring system: RFP conformance and proposal completeness (15%) Demonstrated understanding of the proposed works (15%) Demonstrated experience in comparable projects (10%) Expertise and qualifications of key personnel (10%) Proposed approach and methodology (20%) Reasonability of costs (30%) The results of the evaluations are as follows: BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) CSL Group Ltd. 91 McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. 78 Metric Contracting Services Corporation 65 31 Restoration and Infrastructure Division staff conducted a thorough investigation of the bids received from CSL Group Ltd., McPherson Andrews Contracting Ltd. and Metric Contracting Services Ltd. Through the proposal evaluation process, it was determined that CSL Group Ltd. was the highest ranked contractor given their experience and ability to undertake similar projects and their understanding of the proposed work. Based on evaluation of the bids received, staff recommends that the contract for engineering and construction services for trail boardwalk structures at Guild Park and Gardens, in the City of Toronto be awarded to CSL Group Lt. at a total cost not to exceed $382,590.00, plus 20% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting all requirements set out in the tender documents. The proposal from the other two bidders far exceeded the requirements set out in the tender documents; both proposing to design and construct steel-frame support structures on helical or micro-pile foundations at substantially higher cost than the timber-frame on helical pile proposal from CSL. The CSL proposal is a much simpler design that meets TRCA specifications and further that it is more consistent and appropriate with the significant natural environment of Guild Park & Gardens. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is provided by the City of Toronto on a cost recovery basis under account code 117-39. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will initiate the contract and provide overall project management services. The project includes the key following steps: Provide detailed design for two wood boardwalks; Detailed design for site erosion control measures; Site preparation; Construction of Boardwalk #1 (174m long x 2.1m wide); Construction of Boardwalk #2 (197m long x 1.5m wide); Construction of all necessary boardwalk approach ramps. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, TRCA will seek all necessary permits approvals in partnership with the City of Toronto. Report prepared by: Steve Joudrey, extension 5573 Emails: sjoudrey@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Matt Kenel, 416-417-2113 Emails: mkenel@trca.on.ca Date: March 3, 2017 ______________________________ 32 RES.#A26/17 - CONSERVATION ONTARIO MEMBERSHIP Appointment. Appointment of representatives to Conservation Ontario. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Vice Chair Jack Heath be appointed as Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Alternate to Conservation Ontario, until his successor is named. CARRIED BACKGROUND Conservation Ontario is an umbrella organization representing all 36 conservation authorities which brings together members and staff to achieve common goals. Conservation Ontario is governed by a Council consisting of three representatives of each conservation authority. Council directs the activities of staff and a variety of working groups, task forces and committees focusing on various areas of common interest to all conservation authorities. Conservation Ontario’s bylaws require that member conservation authorities appoint Representatives which include a Voting Delegate, Alternate and Second Alternate as follows: c) “Representatives” are the appointees of the Member Conservation Authorities or other groups who have been invited to become Members of Conservation Ontario, and who participate on behalf of the Members in meetings of Council or Committee of the Whole; provided that at such meetings, decisions will be taken by the Members only by votes of the Voting Delegates (or Alternates).. Their specific duties and responsibilities are outlined in Appendix E. d) “Members” of Conservation Ontario are those organizations who have been invited to become Members of Conservation Ontario and who have accepted that membership and had their membership confirmed by a resolution of Council. e) “Voting Delegate” is a Representative designated by a Member to vote on its behalf at Council meetings. f) The “Alternate” is a Representative designated by a Member who votes at Council meetings if the Voting Delegate is unable to attend. g) The “Second Alternate” is a Representative designated by a Member who votes at Council if the Voting Delegate or Alternate is unable to attend. The appointment of representatives requires approval of the Authority as noted in the Council Composition as follows: 2. Composition Members may appoint up to three Representatives, designated as Voting Delegate, Alternate, and Second Alternate. Council will consist of the Voting Delegates appointed by each Member. The Voting Delegate and both Alternates shall be registered with Conservation Ontario annually. 33 At Authority Meeting #10/15, held on October 30, 2015, Maria Augimeri, Michael Di Biase and Brian Denney were appointed Voting Delegate, Alternate and Second Alternative, respectively, until their successors are appointed. At Annual Authority Meeting #1/17, held on February 24, 2017, Jack Heath was elected as successor Vice Chair to Michael Di Biase, therefore as per Conservation Ontario bylaws, Jack Heath must be appointed by the Authority as TRCA’s Alternate on Conservation Ontario. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Denney, 416-667-6270 Emails: bdenney@trca.on.ca Date: March 2, 2017 ______________________________ 34 RES.#A27/17 - ENERLIFE CONSULTING INC. AGREEMENT Business Partnership. Renewal of business agreement with Enerlife Consulting Inc. for the development and delivery of energy management programs. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the agreement for the development and delivery of sector based energy management programs with Enerlife Consulting Inc. be renewed for the period, April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the agreement including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) began working with Enerlife Consulting (Enerlife) in 2002 when the company was contracted to assist in the development of programs for The Living City Campus. Between 2002 and 2007, TRCA staff worked closely with Enerlife Consulting to develop a new approach to achieving deep savings in energy conservation for buildings. At Authority Meeting #5/07, held on June 22, 2007, Resolution #A145/07 was approved to initiate a formal public-private partnership with Enerlife. In 2007, TRCA entered into a business agreement with Enerlife Consulting to develop and deliver sector based energy programs. Three programs have been developed since beginning to work with Enerlife Consulting; Mayors’ Megawatt Challenge, Greening Health Care and Sustainable Schools. Overall these three programs have been very successful. Since inception, the Mayor’s Megawatt Challenge and Greening Health Care programs have helped hospitals and municipalities reduce energy use by over 2 million GJ, water use by 3 million m3 and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by nearly 108,000 tonnes for a total cost savings of nearly $39 million. The programs continue to help communities in TRCA’s jurisdiction achieve measurable savings in energy, GHG emissions and operating costs with 2016 being the biggest year of savings in the history of these programs. A 2016 update on the programs is outlined below. Mayors’ Megawatt Challenge engages 10 municipalities from across the GTA including eight from within TRCA’s jurisdiction. The program was very successful in 2016 with 1,700 tonnes of GHG emission reductions, 41,000 GJ of energy savings, 8,000 m3 of water savings and $700,000 in cost savings. Municipal members include the City of Toronto, Region of Peel, cities of Brampton, Mississauga, Markham, Oshawa and Barrie, and the towns of Caledon and Richmond Hill. The Community Centre Challenge, a project of the Mayors’ Megawatt Challenge, was launched in 2016 to assist municipalities across Ontario with reducing energy and GHG emissions in these notoriously energy intensive facilities. This project will run until the end of 2020. 35 The Greening Health Care program continues to be national in scope with 42 member hospitals within Ontario and an additional 13 hospitals from Alberta. The program was very successful in 2016 with over 10,000 tonnes of GHG emission reductions, 94,000 m3 of water savings, 181,000 GJ energy savings and $4,000,000 in cost savings. Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest hospital corporations in North America, participated in the 2016 forum and is in discussions to enroll their 38 hospitals in the program for 2017. The Sustainable Schools program has continued to benchmark energy intensity in schools. In 2016 the program was expanded to benchmark the energy performance of 71 school boards in Ontario. The Ministry of Education is actively promoting participation in the program and as a result energy data for 71 school boards was analyzed and reported in 2016. A number of school boards including Peel District School Board contacted the program to review the aggregate results for their Board as well as the individual results for each school. RATIONALE Each year the business relationship with Enerlife is reviewed to ensure that the relationship is continuing to achieve the objectives of The Living City and more specifically, achieve measurable change in the sustainability of the city region. The programs continue to align with TRCA’s corporate strategic direction, in particular Strategy 1: Green the Toronto region’s economy; Strategy 7: Build partnerships and new business models; and Strategy 12: Facilitate a region-wide approach to sustainability. The programs have proven so successful that the CanmetENERGY division of Natural Resources Canada is in discussions to expand the approach to all federal buildings and is looking to assist with the expansion of the Mayors’ Megawatt Challenge across Quebec. These programs also support local and regional municipal GHG emissions reductions targets in line with the requirements pending from the cap-and-trade program and the implementation of community energy plans. These programs can also assist municipalities in identifying, tracking and reporting on energy and GHG emissions reductions in each of the three sectors targeted. In addition, the approach being utilized can be expanded to address commercial and multi-residential buildings. FINANCIAL DETAILS Revenues for the program are derived from membership fees and corporate sponsorships and municipal capital levy. TRCA manages the program while Enerlife provides the technical content and support. Under the agreement, Enerlife can only bill for a specific proportion of the external program revenues received. For example in the table below no external revenue has been generated for the Sustainable Schools program and as such Enerlife was not allowed to bill for any of their time spent on the program. A portion of the external revenue is also allocated for TRCA staff costs and the remainder of staff costs is offset with municipal capital levy. As the programs grow, and additional revenues are acquired, it is expected that the programs will become less reliant on municipal capital levy and eventually be self-reliant. 36 Programs Total Enerlife Billing Total TRCA Cost External Revenue Municipal Capital Levy Net Greening Health Care 166,958 68,238 201,019 34,177 - Mayors’ Megawatt Challenge 56,951 57,406 64,956 49,401 - Sustainable Schools 16,391 16,391 - TOTAL 223,909 142,035 265,975 99,969 - DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The current agreement expires on March 31, 2017. With Authority direction, staff will renew the agreement for an additional year. Staff continues to discuss opportunities to leverage these programs for future provincial cap-and-trade revenues. Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre@trca.on.ca Date: March 9, 2017 ______________________________ 37 RES.#A28/17 - BOLTON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TRACT STAIRCASE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Award of Contract #10003127 for Construction Services for Replacement Staircase. Award of Contract #10003127 for construction services for replacement staircase in TRCA’s Bolton Resource Management Tract, in the Town of Caledon. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Contract #1003127 be awarded to Hobden Construction Company Ltd. for construction services for replacement staircase in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Bolton Resource Management Tract, in the Town of Caledon at a total cost not to exceed $316,070.42, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets TRCA specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Bolton Resource Management Tract (BRMT) is a 973 hectare conservation property owned by TRCA. A large portion of the BRMT is located along the main branch of the Humber River, northwest of downtown Bolton. In November 2013, TRCA completed the Bolton Resource Management Tract Management Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to establish a strategy to help guide the protection, restoration and enhancement of the Bolton Resource Management Tract, and provide a comprehensive management framework for the property. The management plan document outlines key objectives to improve trail sustainability, reduce the environmental impacts of trails, improve trail user experience and accessibility, reduce trail hazards, and improve public safety. The trails and infrastructure in need of improvement have been identified and prioritized by TRCA, including an existing timber staircase. The existing structure was installed decades ago utilizing rustic materials and once served a much smaller number of trail users, limited to hiking only. The existing structure is beginning to present a public safety concern and replacing it with a modern, engineered structure will provide a safe and sustainable solution for decades to come. The staircase will be approximately 43 metres in length, and will support pedestrian traffic. The existing trail alignment on which the staircase lies is being improved by TRCA to safely accommodate recreational cyclist as well. The staircase was designed with a bike track/channel to allow dismounted cyclists to easily and safely move their bikes along the staircase. 38 A geotechnical investigation was completed in November 2013, to inform the development of detailed construction designs and specifications, which were completed in fall 2016. RATIONALE At this time, staff requires construction services of a qualified contractor to carry out fabrication and construction of the required staircase structures, with the expectation for construction to be completed summer 2017. Tender #10003127 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website www.biddingo.com on Wednesday, February 15, 2017 with a mandatory site information meeting held on Thursday, February 23, 2017. Tender packages were provided to 13 contractors as follows: Clearwater Structures Inc. CLS Group Ltd. Ferdom Construction Greenspace Lanscaping and Property Services Inc. Hobden Construction Company Ltd. Iron Bridge Fabrication Inc. Lancoa Contracting McPherson-Andrews Contracting Limited Metric Contracting Services Corporation Norfield Construction Inc. Ultimate Construction Inc. R&M Construction Valez Constructin Inc. Each bidder was requested to provide an online bid submission based on TRCA's design and specifications provided within the Tender package. Members of the Procurement Opening Committee consisted of TRCA staff (Brian Bertrand, Lisa Moore, James Dickie and Matt Kenel). The Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders on Thursday, March 10, 2017 with the following results: BIDDERS Total Cost (Plus HST) Hobden Construction Company Ltd. $316,070.42 Ultimate Construction Inc. $383,690.77 McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd $413,021.00 Metric Contracting Services Corporation $389,980.00 Lancoa Contracting $479,736.00 Ferdom Construction $447,568.00 Restoration Services staff conducted a thorough investigation of the bids received and determined that the bid submitted by Hobden Construction was the most cost effective and meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined in the detailed design drawings. Further assessment by TRCA staff of Hobden Construction’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that Hobden Construction is capable of undertaking the scope of work. 39 Based the bids received, staff recommends that the contract for construction services for replacement staircase in TRCA’s Bolton Resource Management Tract, in the Town of Caledon be awarded to Hobden Construction Company Ltd. at a total cost not to exceed $316,070.42, plus 20% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting all requirements set out in the tender documents. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is provided by Peel Land Care, account 440-62. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will initiate the contract and provide overall project management services. The project includes the key following steps: Detailed design for site erosion and sediment control measures; Site preparation; Construction of staircase; Site restoration. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, TRCA will ensure all necessary permits and approvals are in order. Report prepared by: Brian Bertrand, extension 5320 Emails: bbertrand@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Matt Kenel, 416-417-2113 Emails: mkenel@trca.on.ca Date: March 9, 2017 ______________________________ 40 RES.#A29/17 - THE NATURE SCHOOL AT KORTRIGHT Operation of a Full-Time Nature School at the Kortright Centre for Conservation. Establishment of a full-time nature school at the Kortright Centre for Conservation. Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has developed and delivered environmental education programs across the Toronto region since 1953; AND WHEREAS at Authority Meeting #10/15, held on November 27, 2015, amended Resolution #A227/15 endorsed the Community Learning and Engagement Model, with an emphasis on expanding nature-based learning programs and services at TRCA education centres; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA establish and operate The Nature School at Kortright as a private school providing curriculum-linked nature-based learning programs for the 2017/2018 school year; THAT TRCA file a Notice of Intention to Operate a Private School with the Ontario Ministry of Education; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report to the Authority in June 2018 on year one of the financial and programmatic performance of The Nature School at Kortright. CARRIED BACKGROUND Since 1953, TRCA has been a leader in developing and delivering environmental and cultural education programming in the Province of Ontario. Through a diverse suite of program offerings of day, over-night and in-school learning activities delivered at five community engagement and education centres, along with schools and natural spaces across the Toronto region, TRCA provides educational programs for over 150,000 students and young learners every year. The Kortright Centre for Conservation is a key asset in TRCA’s suite of experiential learning programs that help advance TRCA’s strategic vision of building The Living City by fostering the next generation of sustainable citizens. Utilizing natural assets consisting of a 555 acre property with 16 kilometres of nature trails, mature maple forests, meadows, wetlands and the Humber River, the Kortright Centre provides fun, engaging and educational programs and events to residents of all ages from across the Greater Toronto Area. Events and activities at the Kortright Centre include the Sugarbush Maple Syrup Festival, Four-Winds Kite Festival, summer nature camps, school programs, Magical Christmas Forest and others. To continue to expand on the progressive complement of learning programs and activities offered at the Kortright Centre, TRCA is proposing to establish and operate a nature-based private school for the 2017/2018 school year. This full-time Ministry of Education certified private school, titled “The Nature School” will operate from September to June from 9:00 am – 3:00 pm and have an initial capacity for student enrollment of up to 50 students. This school will integrate the Ontario Ministry of Education Curriculum in to a nature- and forest-school based learning environment; in essence, the outdoors become the classroom within which the normal curriculum is taught. 41 The main focus of The Nature School will be to increase students’ connection with the natural environment through repeated, hands-on, outdoor learning that integrates all subjects of the curriculum into the Kortright Centre’s unique natural spaces, including math, science, social studies, language arts, art, music and physical education. This unique approach to education has been shown to benefit students by increasing attention spans, improving physical and mental health, lowering childhood obesity, increasing student engagement, improving concentration and self-discipline, improving self-regulation and academic achievement and improving student satisfaction and behaviour. The inaugural year of The Nature School will provide enrollment opportunities for students ranging from Kindergarten to Grade Three with students placed in multi-age grades that meet a 1:10 teacher to student ratio, allowing students to establish deeper connections with their teacher and peers and allow for enhanced learning opportunities. TRCA teachers at The Nature School will be Ontario Certified Teachers (OCT) and hold one or more professional designations including: Forest School Practitioner, Early Childhood Educator or Outdoor Experiential Educator. While The Nature School will operate outdoors in most weather conditions, in the event of severe weather, a private indoor learning environment is available in one of Kortright’s classrooms. RATIONALE Nature schools, also referred to as forest schools, are a well-established feature of educational practice in Europe, however are an emerging educational approach in Ontario and Canada. Nature schools, at their core, re-conceptualize the traditional classroom, essentially turning it inside-out, where the majority of the learning takes place in the out-of-doors. While formats vary, a key precept of this model is that students spend a large percentage of their time learning outside in all types of weather. In a nature school the learning is child-focused and inquiry-based, with a heavy focus on exploration, imagination and creative thinking. Some of the benefits attributed to the forest school approach include: increased confidence, self-esteem and independence; increased drive to experience new challenges and an improved ability to assess risk; improved social development and collaboration; increased participation and language development through the introduction of relevant, real-time learning opportunities; increased whole-family engagement; child-centred learning. Section 5 of TRCA’s 2013 – 2022 10 Year Strategic Plan Building The Living City focuses on the need to Foster Sustainable Citizenship through a wide range of engagement and learning mechanisms. The Nature School at Kortright will advance TRCA’s strategic goals related to creating a sustainable city region by facilitating an improved understanding of environmental, sustainable and urban issues within a targeted segment of our population. 42 FINANCIAL DETAILS The annual tuition fee per student will be set within the range of $12,000 to $15,000. A market scan was conducted of Vaughan private school tuition fees and indicated this is competitive, but on the lower end of the spectrum. A minimum enrollment of 10 students would be required to ensure viability of the school, while full enrollment of 50 students, after projected expenses, would result in a projected net income of approximately $100,000. Net proceeds from The Nature School will be utilized to support the suite of learning and engagement activities delivered at the Kortright Centre and TRCA’s other community and environmental spaces. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Under Section 16 of the Education Act, organizations intending to operate a private school must file a Notice of Intention to Operate a Private School with the Ontario Ministry of Education. For the 2017/2018 school year, TRCA must file the Notice of Intention by September 1, 2017. Report prepared by: Adrian O’Driscoll, 905-832-2289 extension 240; Darryl Gray 416-791-0327 Emails: aodrsicoll@trca.on.ca and dgray@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Adrian O’Driscoll, 905-832-2289 extension 240 Emails: aodrsicoll@trca.on.ca Date: March 13, 2017 ______________________________ 43 RES.#A30/17 - 2017 BUDGET, OPERATING AND CAPITAL Approval of the 2017 operating and capital budget. (BAAB Res.#C3/17) Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Gino Rosati WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) provides that a conservation authority, in establishing its annual levy, shall have the power to determine the proportion of the total benefit afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, subject to such regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act as may be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council: (i) all participating municipalities be designated as benefitting for programs included in the 2017 Operating Budget; (ii) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) share of the cost of the programs included in the 2017 Operating Budget shall be raised from the participating municipalities as part of the general levy; (iii) the 2017 general levy be apportioned to the participating municipalities in the proportion that the modified current value assessment (CVA) of the whole is under the jurisdiction of TRCA, unless otherwise provided in the levy or a project; (iv) appropriate TRCA officials be directed to advise the participating municipalities, pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act and the regulations made thereunder, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the general levy set forth in the 2017 Operating Budget, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the project and special levy set forth in the 2017 Capital Budget and in the approved projects of TRCA; THAT the 2017 Budget, Operating and Capital, and all projects therein, be adopted; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to amend the 2017 Budget, Operating and Capital to reflect actual 2017 provincial transfer payment allocations in order to set the amount of matching levy required by the CA Act; THAT the cost of property taxes imposed by municipalities be included as additional levy to the participating municipalities where the lands are located, excluding the cost of property taxes which are passed on to a third party under a lease or similar agreement; THAT, except where statutory or regulatory requirements provide otherwise, TRCA staff be authorized to enter into agreements with private sector organizations, non-governmental organizations or governments and their agencies for the undertaking of projects which are of benefit to TRCA and funded by the sponsoring organization or agency, including projects that have not been provided for in the approved budget; 44 THAT, as required by Ontario Regulations 139/96 and 231/97, this recommendation and the accompanying budget documents, including the schedule of matching and non-matching levies, be approved by recorded vote; THAT the presentation of 2016 budget comparisons and related actuals be amended to conform to the presentation adopted in the 2017 budget document; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as may be necessary to implement the foregoing, including obtaining approvals and the signing and execution of documents. RECORDED VOTE Jack Ballinger Yea David Barrow Yea Ron Chopowick Yea Vincent Crisanti Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Michael Di Biase Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Jack Heath Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Maria Kelleher Yea Giorgio Mammoliti Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Gino Rosati Yea John Sprovieri Yea Maria Augimeri Yea THE MOTION WAS CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A31/17 - FOOD OPERATIONS, RETAIL AND PUBLIC EVENTS AT BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE AND KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION Request to Undertake Request for Proposal Process. Request for approval to undertake a Request for Proposal process to explore the potential of leveraging new business partnerships to grow and diversify food operations, retail offerings and public events at Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre for Conservation. (Executive Res.#B2/17) Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: John Sprovieri WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) operates Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) and the Kortright Centre for Conservation (KCC); 45 AND WHEREAS TRCA staff leads the management of food operations, retail services and public events at both locations; AND WHEREAS staff continues to seek ongoing improvement to business models to increase net revenues and improve service delivery related to food operations, retail services and public events; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a Request for Proposal process be undertaken to explore how new business partnerships may contribute to growing and diversifying BCPV’s and KCC’s food operations, retail offerings and public events. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A32/17 - TOWN OF AJAX Request for Permanent Easement Required for a Drainage Swale Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, Duffins Creek Watershed, CFN 56097. Receipt of a request from Town of Ajax to provide a permanent easement for the construction of a drainage swale, located north of the property municipally known as 176 Riverside Drive, in the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, Duffins Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B3/17) Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: John Sprovieri WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Town of Ajax to provide a permanent easement for construction of a drainage swale, located north of 176 Riverside Drive, in the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, Duffins Creek watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Town of Ajax in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.03 hectares (0.07 acres), more or less, said property being described as Part of Block 2, Registered Plan 342, Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham and being designated as Part 1 on a Draft Plan prepared by Pearson and Pearson Surveying Limited on January 30, 2017 under project number 0622, be granted in favour of the Town of Ajax; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs be paid by the Town of Ajax; THAT the Town of Ajax is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this permanent easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigating measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of Town of Ajax; 46 THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of the Town of Ajax; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by the Town of Ajax prior to the commencement of construction; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A33/17 - THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Request for Permanent Easements Required for Watermain Replacement and an Existing Sanitary Sewer Line City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, Etobicoke Creek Watershed, CFN 56787. Receipt of a request from The Regional Municipality of Peel for permanent easements required for the Main Street South Watermain Replacement and an existing unregistered sanitary sewer line between Harold Street and Elgin Drive, in the City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, Etobicoke Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B4/17) Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: John Sprovieri WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from The Regional Municipality of Peel for permanent easements required for watermain replacements and an existing sanitary sewer line, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, Etobicoke Creek watershed. AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with The Regional Municipality of Peel in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent easements containing 0.15 hectares (0.38 acres), more or less, said property being described as Part of Lots 8 & 9, Registered Plan Br-29 designated as Parts 1-5 inclusive on draft plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Ltd. reference No. 16-30-988-00-A; Part of Blocks B and N and Part of Eldomar Avenue S.E., Registered Plan 581 designated as Part 4 on draft plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Ltd. reference No. 16-30-988-00-B; Part of Lot 4, Concession 1 W.H.S and part of Block D, Registered Plan 635 designated as Part 4, 5, 8, 10, 13 to 15 inclusive on draft plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Ltd., reference No. 16-30-988-00-C, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, be granted in favour of The Regional Municipality of Peel; 47 THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs to be paid by The Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT The Regional Municipality of Peel is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigation measure being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of The Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of The Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by The Regional Municipality of Peel prior to the commencement of construction; THAT said conveyance be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A34/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Highland Creek Watershed Your Home Developments (Deer Run) and 1583690 Ontario Limited, CFN 56859 and CFN 56860. Acquisition of properties located north of Highway 2A and east of Medowvale Road, municipally known as 6435, 6441 and 6443 Kingston Road, in the City of Toronto, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Highland Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B5/17) Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: John Sprovieri THAT 0.07 hectares (0.16 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Highway 2A and east of Meadowvale Road, said land being Part of Lot 4, Concession 1 designated as Parts 11, 18 and 21 on Plan 66R-28972, municipally known as 6435, 6441 and 6443 Kingston Road, in the City of Toronto be purchased from Your Home Developments (Deer Run) and 1583690 Ontario Limited; THAT the purchase price be the nominal sum of $2.00; 48 THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A35/16 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT Section II item 10.2.1 – Appointment of Enforcement Officer, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/17, held on March 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A36/16 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT Section II item 10.2.2 – Flood Monitoring Website Redevelopment Project, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/17, held on March 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 49 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A37/17 - SPECIAL POLICY AREAS Protocols for Small Proposals. Implementation of TRCA’s Planning and Development Administrative Fee Schedule for small projects within special policy areas. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff report entitled special policy areas (SPA) be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As part of Planning and Development’s on-going service delivery and fee review process, Planning and Development staff biennially review and update TRCA’s Administrative Fee Schedules for Planning and Permitting services. At Authority Meeting #12/15, held on January 29, 2016, amended Resolution #A259/15 approved the TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Planning Services for 2016-2017. Further at the meeting amending Resolution #A260/15 was approved as follows: AND FURTHER THAT staff review the protocols for small proposals in special policy areas and report back to the Authority. RATIONALE Staff reviewed internal procedures and processes for applying fees to small projects within special policy areas. TRCA staff does not have a stand-alone specific protocol for the application of TRCA’s administrative fees that are specific to minor projects within special policy areas. All minor applications within flood vulnerable areas, including SPAs, are reviewed with the same criteria for safety and concerns for impacts within the floodplain. However, the fee that is applied is assessed based upon the complexity of issues pertaining to the site and the proposed works. TRCA staff process a broad range of different types of permit applications, and each application is different, based upon site-specific conditions. Even within the “minor” fee category, the range of projects that TRCA staff review varies greatly. As such, it is not possible to have a template approach, and each project needs to be reviewed and considered individually. For consistency, the determination of whether a TRCA permit is required, and the fee that is applicable is made by TRCA staff, and explained in detail to the clients. While information is provided on TRCA’s website with respect to planning and permitting fees associated with the standard types of applications (e.g. decks, pools, small structures, filling and grading) the client is not asked to make a determination of the applicable fees. 50 Minor Permits (with SPA Fee) Small-scale proposals, which can include decks, accessory structures (such as a shed or gazebo), and landscaping (with grading and possible filling), are generally submitted by individual property owners. Planning and Development staff works extensively with homeowners to guide them, and provide them with timely information on TRCA’s process and fees. Within the SPA an additional 50% of the applicable fee is typically charged to cover additional technical review related to complex engineering issues on the application where the application is of sufficient scale to require review by TRCA staff, and the issuance of a TRCA permit. There are, however, many small scale projects for which a TRCA permit is not required, and Planning and Development staff routinely provides clearances to landowners at no cost, or minimal cost, depending upon the request. Fees Not Required (Clearance Only) Without limiting the ability of TRCA planners to make site-specific decisions with respect to the application of fees, there are some minor enquiries for which a permitting fee will typically not be applied by TRCA. These are generally projects that do not fit the definition of “Development” as defined by TRCA, as follows: Routine maintenance of existing structures – replacement of existing windows (exact like for like – without re-sizing or change in type), re-siding or cladding of dwellings, routine garden works including the replacement of garden timbers or low curbs (not involving fill placement or retaining walls); Changes to garage doors; Replacement of deck boards (only) outside of any hazards; Resurfacing of driveways or pavers where existing grades are maintained. Interior alterations that do not create new openings, a change of building elevations, or a change of use to a higher risk or prohibited use (e.g. kitchen renovation). Circumstances where a portion of a property is within a TRCA Regulated area, however, the proposed works are outside of the Regulated Area. Fencing – where it does not result in an alteration to a watercourse or wetland, and does not pose a significant impediment to the conveyance of floodwaters. Minor façade improvements or replacement of existing signs on buildings. Process and Service Delivery Structure for Minor Permits In 2016, TRCA staff also reviewed the process and service delivery related to past applications within the special policy areas. It was determined that the best measures to optimize the approval process related to minor applications (including SPAs) was to provide improved guidance to applicants on TRCA’s permitting requirements, and enhanced training for planners servicing this clientele. TRCA’s Planning and Development website is a key resource for making this information available. In early 2016, the website was comprehensively updated, and an extensive amount of effort went into providing easy access to information on TRCA’s permitting process, timelines, and how to contact staff with respect to specific projects. Clients can now search for their property to determine whether it is Regulated, and detailed step-by-step information is provided with respect to the permitting process and requirements. Clients are also provided with the contact information for the planner responsible for the area, from which they can obtain additional information specific to their property, generally within one business day. 51 Planning and Development staff has continued to test, refine and improve TRCA’s web mapping tools, to ensure that the information provided is easy to use, accurate and helpful to clients. Over the remainder to 2016, Planning and Development staff monitored the application of the fees to determine whether there were any additional information gaps, or complications arising from the application of the minor fees. In 2016, there were no concerns raised by property owners with respect to the application of minor fees, which staff believes is a product of the extensive information that is now easily accessible on the website, and the many options that are provided for direct contact with Planning and Development staff to discuss each individual application, proposal and enquiry. The service, however, is not an entirely self-serve process; it requires professional assistance from the TRCA planner. Planning and Development is strongly committed to excellent customer service, and works on a continuous improvement program of assessing opportunities to better address clients’ needs. Given the large geography and complex landscapes that exist within TRCA’s jurisdiction, significant thought has gone into reducing the need for applicants to travel to TRCA’s offices to obtain answers to their questions, and submission of their applications. The suite of services that is offered includes multiple options to get information from Planning and Development staff without cost or at low cost, in a timely manner, including: TRCA’s Enhanced Planning and Development Website TRCA’s Planning and Development website is an excellent resource, which provides property owners with information on the process, timelines and fees applicable to the services that TRCA offers. The website has an easy to use screening tool that allows applicants to determine whether their property is within a TRCA Regulated Area. The website guides applicants on how to get the information that they need, and provides them with the contact information for the TRCA planner responsible for their area. TRCA’s Municipal Screening Mapping TRCA provides screening mapping to our municipal partners, to allow municipal staff to identify when a property is of interest to TRCA, so that they can refer applicants to contact TRCA staff to discuss their applications within those areas. Many of the municipalities’ web mapping tools, such as City of Toronto, include a TRCA screening layer. TRCA’s Walk-in, Email and Telephone Enquiry Service TRCA Planning and Development staff fields several thousand enquiries each year through website and phone call enquiries. Staff typically responds to enquiries within one day, and often within a matter of hours. Planning and Development staff will walk proponents through TRCA’s process, and the precise requirements that pertain to their property. Planning and Development offers a walk-in service, in which there is always a planner on duty during regular business hours, and the public can talk to a planner about their property without cost. Planning and Development staff will often provide an email clearance for the applicant, without cost, where the project does not need to be reviewed by TRCA staff. 52 TRCA’s Property Enquiry, Concept Development and Solicitor/Realtor Enquiry Services For projects that do need to be reviewed by TRCA staff, and the applicant would like additional assistance or guidance with respect to their project and meeting TRCA’s requirements, TRCA provides a number of low cost services for applicants to receive the additional guidance, including the Property Enquiry service, and Solicitor/Realtor service. SPAs, as well as other flood vulnerable areas are identified through this process. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Moving forward, Planning and Development staff will continue to review and make improvements to processes and protocols. In 2017, additional electronic payment options will be made available to provide additional streamlining of payments for smaller scale applications and permits. TRCA has developed a custom application, which allows the planner to guide the process, without the need for the client to assess which fees are applicable. More information on this and other improvements are being implemented as part of the continuous improvements program. Further information on these new processes will be detailed in the next comprehensive report on TRCA’s Administrative Fee Schedules for Planning and Permitting Services in January, 2018. Report prepared by: Quentin Hanchard, extension 5324 Emails: qhanchard@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Quentin Hanchard, extension 5324 Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: qhanchard@trca.on.ca, cwoodland@trca.on.ca Date: February 24, 2017 ______________________________ 53 RES.#A38/17 - REAR DOOR PASSENGER MIRRORS FOR TRCA VEHICLES Acquisition and installation of rearview mirrors on rear passenger doors for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority vehicles. Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the report on the supply and installation of rear door passenger mirrors for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned vehicles be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #8/16, held on October 28, 2016, Resolution #A168/16 was approved as follows: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be requested to examine the feasibility of requiring rear door passenger mirrors on all TRCA vehicles. In recent years, an increasing number of vehicles with rear passenger doors have been equipped with rear door passenger mirrors. These mirrors assist in providing a clear view to the rear of the vehicle for the individuals seated in the rear passenger seat when exiting the vehicle. These mirrors are becoming more prevalent in areas with high population densities having above normal pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Although relatively new to the North American market, the rear door passenger mirrors are seen on taxi services in larger cities. TRCA staff contacted Hitch City and Farmbro Inc. to inquire about the availability and costs to install the rear door passenger mirrors. Both suppliers have been able to source various vehicle and equipment accessories for TRCA in the past. Only Farmbro Inc. responded to staffs request and indicated that it could supply the product through an overseas supplier at a unit cost of $18.00, plus HST, and that TRCA could install the mirrors utilizing an industrial grade adhesive. TRCA staff determined that approximately 100 mirror units are required to outfit both sides of the existing vehicle fleet. RATIONALE The addition of rear door passenger mirrors on all TRCA vehicles equipped with rear passenger doors can prevent potential incidents/accidents from occurring when an occupant exits a vehicle. These incidents can bring forward additional costs related to potential litigation and insurance claims for the TRCA. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total cost to purchase the rear door passenger mirrors from Farmbro is approximately $2,400.00. The mirrors will be installed by staff. Funding for the mirrors is available in the vehicle and equipment fund. 54 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The rear door passenger mirrors were received from Farmbro Inc. in January 2017. Because installation is recommended during moderate temperature the work will be completed by April 2017. As new vehicles are added to the fleet they will be outfitted with rear door passenger mirrors. Report prepared by: Aubrey Orr, extension 5760 Emails: aorr@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Aubrey Orr, extension 5760 Emails: aorr@trca.on.ca Date: March 1, 2017 ______________________________ 55 RES.#A39/17 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Summary of 2016 Requests. Provides a summary of requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the report dated February 6, 2017, on 2016 freedom of information requests, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). TRCA is also subject to the provisions of the federal Personal information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Requests under the Act are dealt with by the Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat, who is designated as TRCA's Information and Privacy Officer. Staff reports to the Information and Privacy Commission annually on the number and type of applications received each year. The activity in 2016 is summarized below. RATIONALE In 2016, TRCA received 31 requests for information under the Act. Of the 31 requests, 30 were completed in 2016 while one was carried over into 2017. All of the requests related to "general records" as opposed to "personal information". The latter refers to personal information TRCA has collected concerning the applicant. Of the 31 requests made, 17 requests were from individuals/public, 12 from businesses and one from an association/group. These are designations prescribed for under MFIPPA. Of the 31 requests received in 2016, all were processed within the statutory time limits under MFIPPA in the following breakdown: 23 were processed in 30 days or less, and seven were processed in 31-60 days due to third party notices, which are required if the information requested affects a third party resulting in a duty to consult prior to release of records. In response to the 30 requests, the following was disclosed: all information was disclosed in nine cases; information was disclosed in part in 15 cases; no responsive records existed in five cases; no information disclosed in one case. The decision to not disclose information in the one case was due to a Third Party request to withhold the information, a recommendation that was upheld by TRCA’s Information and Privacy Officer, as disclosure could reasonably be expected to: prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency. When partially information was disclosed, the exclusions used for non-disclosure were as follows, and for the illustrated number of requests: Advice or Recommendations – 1; 56 Law Enforcement – 1; Relations with Governments – 1; Third Party Information – 8; Economic/Other Interests – 1; Danger to Safety or Health – 2; Personal Privacy – 13; Also, TRCA receives many requests concerning permit and planning applications which, once approved by the Executive Committee, are a matter of public record. The Act requires that a $5 fee be included with each application. Also, the Act allows TRCA to charge for activities including, but not limited to, photocopies, and search and preparation time. In 2016, TRCA collected fees of $984, and $5.40 of fees were waived. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: February 6, 2017 ______________________________ 57 RES.#A40/17 - SENIOR STAFF EXPENSES Summary of senior staff expenses for 2016. Moved by: John Sprovieri Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the summary of expense details for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Chief Executive Officer and directors for January 1 to December 31, 2016, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Toronto City Council on November 29, 30 and December 1, 2011, the following resolution was approved: City Council approve the publication on the City's public website on a semi-annual basis, commencing with the 2011 calendar year, expenses related to business travel, conferences and training, hospitality and protocol for senior staff positions at the Division Head level and above. City Council provide a copy of this Item to the City's major agencies and corporations requesting that they adopt a similar policy for their organization if they have not already done so. In keeping with this request, TRCA staff advised the City of Toronto that TRCA staff will report to the Authority annually on the expenses outlined in the City staff report dated October 19, 2011 - Feasibility of Publishing Expense Details of Senior City Staff on the City's Website, for TRCA's senior staff including the Chief Executive Officer and divisional directors. This information will be available on the TRCA website as a staff report in the minutes of the meeting. Expenses to be published include the following, and are detailed in Attachment 1: 1. business travel (including kilometrage reimbursement or operating costs when vehicle is provided to the employee); 2. conferences and training (including accommodation, registration and per diem allowance); 3. hospitality or protocol expenses (hosting TRCA events for non-employees at eating establishments or other appropriate locations). Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Rachel Holmes, extension 5666 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca, rholmes@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: March 10, 2017 Attachments: 1 58 Attachment 1 Business Travel Jan 1 -Dec 31 Parking and Transit 527.45 Jan 1 -Dec 31 407 ETR 429.99 Jan 1 -Dec 31 Operating Cost of Assigned Vehicle 3,811.57 Total 4,769.01 Conferences and Training 01-Jun CaGBC -Lasting Change Conference and Expo 339.00 03-Oct Waterfront 905 -Urban Land Institute event 90.00 Total 429.00 Business Travel Jan 1 -Dec 31 Parking and Transit 898.00 Total 898.00 Conferences and Training 15-Jan Course Registration - Tax Update 416.97 Total 416.97 Hospitality and Protocol 19-Apr Lunch with CEO of StarGarden software 61.30 Total 61.30 Darryl Gray, Director, Education, Training and Outreach Business Travel Jan 1 -Dec 31 Parking and Transit 147.81 Jan 1 -Dec 31 407 ETR 1,060.43 Jan 1 -Dec 31 Operating Cost of Assigned Vehicle 3,049.94 Total 4,258.18 Conferences and Training 11-Jan AMCTO-Primer on Planning 389.85 26-Jul AMCTO -Map Unit 1 345.00 12-Apr Conservation Authorities University Tuition 1,395.55 Total 2,130.40 Hospitality and Protocol 06-Jul Lunch Meeting with Staff of Community & Home Assistance to Seniors 42.63 Total 42.63 Brian Denney, Chief Executive Officer Rocco Sgambelluri, Chief Financial Officer 59 Business Travel Jan 1 -Dec 31 407 ETR 1,291.29 Jan 1 -Dec 31 Operating Cost of Assigned Vehicle 3,384.75 09-Oct Parking and Transit for National NRPA Conf.743.88 Total 5,419.92 Conferences and Training 09-Oct Accommodations in St. Louis 1,565.81 Conference Registration 955.40 Meals 72.24 Total 2,593.45 Business Travel Jan 1 -Dec 31 Parking and Transit 71.25 Jan 1 -Dec 31 407 ETR 758.21 Jan 1 -Dec 31 Operating Cost of Assigned Vehicle 3,932.68 Total 4,762.14 Business Travel Jan 1 -Dec 31 Parking and Transit 179.25 Jan 1 -Dec 31 407 ETR 269.59 Jan 1 -Dec 31 Travel allowance 1,353.20 Total 1,802.04 Business Travel Jan 1 -Dec 31 Parking and Transit 3,163.11 Jan 1 -Dec 31 407 ETR 443.92 04-Mar Hospitality and Protocol because was a combined fee booking)156.90 Total 3,763.93 Hospitality and Protocol 26-Feb Accelerating Sustainablity-Global Conference Registration 1,884.75 04-Mar Hotel and Flight for Globe Conference 1,766.43 12-Apr Conservation Authorities University Tuition 1,395.55 25-Jun Conservation University dinner 45.14 Total 5,091.87 Chandra Sharma, Director, Watershed Stratagies Derek Edwards, Director, Parks and Culture Nick Saccone , Senior Director, Restoration and Infrastructure Carolyn Woodland, Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) Conference 60 RES.#A41/17 - SECTION III – ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT Section III item 9.2.1 – 2016 Year End Financial Progress Report, contained in Budget/Audit Advisory Board Minutes #1/17, held on March 24, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A42/17 - SECTION III – ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Maria Kelleher Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT Section III items 10.3.1 – 10.3.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/17, held on March 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED Section III Items 10.3.1 – 10.3.2 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING (Executive Res.#B8/17) SUMMARY OF PROCUREMENTS (Executive Res.#B9/17) ______________________________ Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A43/17 – ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended item 10.4, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/17, held on March 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 61 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:57 a.m., on Friday, March 24, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer 62 Authority Meeting #3/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, April 21, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ron Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Michael Di Biase Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member ABSENT Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Jennifer Drake Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Jim Tovey Member A moment of silence was observed in memory of Councillor Ron Moeser, TRCA Member. RES.#A44/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/17, held on March 24, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 63 DELEGATIONS 4.1 A delegation by Ms. Brigette Sopher of Whitevale Park and Marsh Committee in regard to item 7.1 - Whitevale Park and Marsh Committee. RES.#A45/17 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT above-noted delegation 4.1 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ PRESENTATIONS 5.1 A presentation by Brian Kelly, Manager of Sustainability, Durham Region, in regard to item 7.2 - Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan. 5.2 A presentation by Nicholas Schulz, Director of Outreach, Cornerstone Standards Council, in regard to item 7.3 - Cornerstone Standards Council Certification for Aggregate. RES.#A46/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT above-noted presentation 5.1 be received. CARRIED RES.#A47/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Maria Kelleher Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT above-noted presentation 5.2 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 64 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A48/17 WHITEVALE PARK AND MARSH COMMITTEE Summary of Planning Approvals on Lands West of North Road in the City of Pickering. The Whitevale Park and Marsh Committee, a subcommittee of the Whitevale District Residents Association, has requested that the Authority support their efforts to create open space within provincial lands slated for development within the Seaton Community in the City of Pickering. Moved by: Kevin Ashe Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the Whitevale District Residents Association be encouraged to continue discussions with the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation, City of Pickering, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to identify an agreed-upon approach to addressing the natural features on the Package 10 lands within the future Seaton Community; AND FURTHER THAT the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Durham Region, City of Pickering, Whitevale District Residents Association and the Whitevale Park and Marsh Committee be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #2/17, held on March 24, 2017, Resolution #A23/17 approved referring correspondence from Ms. Brigitte Sopher, of Whitevale Park and Marsh Committee in regard to Package 10 of the Seaton Development to staff for a report to the Authority at Meeting #3/17, scheduled to be held on April 21, 2017. RATIONALE On March 15, 2017 the Authority received a request from the Whitevale Park and Marsh Committee, a subcommittee of the Whitevale District Residents Association, to support their efforts to establish a natural park within a 15 ha site owned by the Infrastructure Ontario within Neighbourhood 18 of the future Seaton Community in the City of Pickering. This site is located east of the West Duffins Creek, south of Highway 407, west of North Road and north of the Village of Whitevale (Attachment 1). The site is designated for low density residential development within the Province of Ontario’s Central Pickering Development Plan and the City of Pickering’s Official Plan. The site (known as “Package 10”), along with the rest of the provincially-owned development lands in Seaton, have been declared surplus to the provincial needs and Infrastructure Ontario (IO), by way of the Ministry of Infrastructure, so IO has direction to proceed with the sale of the lands for future development. Planning of the Seaton Community has a long and complex history. On May 3, 2006, the Province through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs adopted the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) under the authority of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994. The draft of the Plan was subject to public comment. The Plan assigns land uses within the new community including various residential densities, employment, mixed uses and a natural heritage system. 65 In 2005 and 2006 staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs of Housing (MMAH) in consultation with staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNRF) and TRCA used the available TRCA and provincial natural features mapping and an on-site staking exercise to identify the limits of the Seaton Natural Heritage System. The system includes wildlife corridors, 30 metre buffers from most natural features and the catchment areas of certain wetlands. The ultimate decision as to the location of the Natural Heritage System was made by staff at MMAH, taking into account advice from MNR and TRCA staff. At the time of the mapping and site staking exercise, TRCA staff did advise MMAH staff that there were natural features within the former quarry lands on the site. These features include wetland, forest and sand barren. TRCA field data from 2005 indicate that the wetland area is a mineral fen meadow marsh. Adjacent to the wetland there are two areas of deciduous treed bluffs, a dry fresh poplar deciduous forest and pockets of sand barren. As the site is a former quarry, the features are anthropogenic (resulting from human activity). The limits of the designated Natural Heritage System along with the mapped natural features on the site are identified in Attachment 1. An early draft version of the Natural Heritage System mapping showed the quarry as part of a wildlife corridor running east-west across North Road. However, the wildlife corridor was moved north, to accommodate a request by the City of Pickering to separate the employment lands to the north from residential lands to the south as shown on plans prepared by the City prior to the Ontario Planning and Development Act process. A decision was made by MMAH staff to exclude the quarry features from the Natural Heritage System in the final version of the CPDP, and move the wildlife corridor to the north. There are five landowners in Seaton, including Infrastructure Ontario. In 2008 and 2009, the landowners’ group filed amendments to the City of Pickering Official Plan to implement development on their development sites. The applications were then appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). TRCA was a party to the OMB process, along with MMAH, the City of Pickering, Durham Region and the Whitevale District Residents Association (W DRA). Through a series of settlement discussions, Minutes of Settlement between the landowners, MMAH, City, and TRCA were executed and the agreed-upon Official Plan Amendment was presented to the OMB. Further negotiations between the landowners, Durham Region and WDRA took place and the OMB approved Official Plan Amendment 22 in 2014 (http://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/opa22.pdf). The OPA sets out the various land uses and policies for each development site. As the Province had declared a provincial interest in the OMB appeals, the Decisions of the OMB were reviewed by the Province, and the Decisions were confirmed by an Order in Council in March of 2014. The site in question is designated in Schedule X of the Official Plan for Low Density Residential development. In 2015 Infrastructure Ontario applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision for the site. The applications were accompanied by a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (FSSR). TRCA staff provided a planning and technical review of the applications in a letter dated June 12, 2016 (Attachment 2). This review identified a number of deficiencies in the application material including inconsistency between the Draft Plan of Subdivision and the FSSR, a lack of ecological and hydrogeological information, concerns with the stormwater management system design, and issues with grading into the Natural Heritage System, among others. TRCA staff awaits a response to the comments and expect that the natural features on the site will be clearly identified and an approach to addressing them will be provided by the landowner. The wetland on the site is regulated by TRCA under Ontario Reg. 166/06, as amended, and a permit will be required to interfere with the wetland in any way. As the site is part of active development applications, the review and commenting process will be in accordance with the standard TRCA procedures. After the review and consideration of all required information, a recommendation will be made and provided to the City of Pickering. 66 At this time, staff recommends that the Whitevale District Residents Association be encouraged to continue discussions with Infrastructure Ontario, City of Pickering and TRCA staff to identify an agreed-upon approach to addressing the natural features on the Package 10 site. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for the review of the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Draft Plan of Subdivision applications are available from the application fee in Planning Services account 110-01. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Planning and Development staff will work with the various parties to ensure the approach to identifying and addressing the natural features on the site is consistent with provincial and TRCA natural hazard and natural heritage policies. Report prepared by: Steven Heuchert, extension 5311 Emails: sheuchert@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Steven Heuchert, extension 5311 Emails: sheuchert@trca.on.ca Date: April 10, 2017 Attachments: 2 67 Natural FeaturesQuarry Site - Habitat 0 100 20050Meters ± April 2017Created by: T.R.C.A. Information Services/Information TechnologiesOrthophoto: Spring 2016, First Base Solutions Inc.Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources & dates. The T.R.C.A. takes no responsibilityfor errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes & corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the T.R.C.A. GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. WHITEVAL E R D N O R T H R D Attachment 1 Forest Successional Meadow Wetland Watercourse Seaton Development Limits Sand Barren 68 July 12, 2016 CFN 54506 VIA E-MAIL ONLY Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Pym: Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2015-06 Zoning By-law Amendment A 11/15 Seaton Community City of Pickering Infrastructure Ontario (OILC Neighbourhood 18 Lands) Thank you for the opportunity to review the FSSR SWMF #71, prepared by GHD, dated December 17, 2015, received December 2, 2015, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by planningAlliance, dated May 21, 2015, received August 20, 2015. We understand the purpose of this submission is to obtain draft plan and zoning approval for a number of residential densities, community uses, and SWMF. This subdivision makes up the Infrastructure Ontario lands in Neighbourhood 18 of the Seaton Community. We offer a number of comments, resolution of which will in some cases result in changes to the block pattern: General 1. Please submit an up to date Draft Plan of Subdivision. As there are no dimensions on Drawing FSP-2, Functional Servicing Plan, it is difficult to tell if Block 23 on the May 21, 2015 version of the Draft Plan accurately reflects the pond block necessary to implement the SWMF design. The Block will also likely change to reflect our comments below. 2. The Draft Plan of Subdivision includes a number of large blocks north and south of Whitevale Road and east of North Road, as well as remnant Blocks 1 and 21 that are not referenced in any FSSR. An explanation of the land uses and water management on these parcels should be provided. Hydrogeology 3. The hydrogeology and LID sections of the FSSR are weak, with little to no groundwater level information and general statements that infiltration will not be effective. The work done at the MESP stage four years ago was necessarily broad in scope, and not directed to site-level hydrogeology or LIDs. The FSSRs must build upon that general knowledge and identify site- specific areas for LID implementation. However, the groundwater and LID Section in each of these reports is limited to less than a page of text with some stock figures. The hydrogeology section is equally brief, and insufficient to support LID choices. Borehole logs from the previous work in 2011-2013 are included, but encompass all of Neighbourhoods 17-21, and contain limited information on groundwater levels. In short, there is insufficient information in this submission to evaluate the hydrogeologic considerations of the proposed development and therefore the block and lot layout. ATTACHMENT 2 69 Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP - 2 - July 12, 2016 C:\Users\steve.heuchert\Desktop\54506 TRCA Letter to Pym July 12 2016.docx Natural Heritage System 4. The ecological component of the FSSR is missing. Prior to draft plan approval, a detailed environmental report needs to be submitted that provides an existing conditions evaluation of the NHS in this area, an analysis of the development impacts on the NHS and provides recommendations for mitigation and/or compensation. As we are working through the first Seaton development plans, we are discovering that delaying the environmental analysis is resulting in problems at detailed design. The full ecological analysis should be done at this stage. 5. A wetland water balance has been completed to direct water to WD13; however, there is no explanation provided as to how the outfall type and location were selected. The outfall for a feature based water balance should be sited to attempt to mimic pre-development flow conditions and sized to mitigate the effects of an impervious catchment. Please provide more information and update the plans accordingly. 6. Grading associated with the construction of the stormwater management pond outfall has not been shown. Please ensure that all grading within the NHS is clearly shown on the plans. 7. The servicing plans indicate that an LID will be installed at the outfall for the stormwater management pond; however, only a flow spreader is shown. Please clarify what LID will be proposed for the stormwater management pond outfall. 8. In future submissions, please ensure that the servicing plans differentiate regional infrastructure that was evaluated as part of the Regional EA from infrastructure that is being evaluated as part of the FSSR. 9. We recommend that fencing be provided at the limit of development to deter future encroachment into the natural heritage system. The fencing should be located on private property and not in the natural heritage system. Remnant Parcel #2 10. We understand that this remnant parcel is essentially an extension of the DG Group subdivision in NH18. There is a significant lack of discussion in the report, supporting sizing calculations and details for the storm servicing and SWM for this parcel. It must be demonstrated how the SWM criteria is being met for this parcel if this report is to support the Draft Plan of Subdivision for that parcel. If this information is to come later as part of the DG Group submission for S-P-2009-01 and 02, then any draft approval of the remnant parcel should include a “hold” on the lots and an ability to redline based on a future technical submission. 11. On Drawing 11098-FGP1, some of the grading intrusions to the NHS are shown, however there are some missing near the southwest bend of the road. Please show the full extent of grading for the parcel. SWMF #71 12. The configuration of the inlet and outlet are not ideal as it will result in short circuiting of the flow path, and a significant “dead space” near the south end of the pond. The pond shape, including the block itself, may need to be revisited to ensure a proper length to width ratio and minimize short circuiting. 70 Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP - 3 - July 12, 2016 C:\Users\steve.heuchert\Desktop\54506 TRCA Letter to Pym July 12 2016.docx 13. Please demonstrate that stormwater discharge will have a suitable (stable) flow path from the outfall to the West Duffins Creek. 14. Although 100 year quantity control is not required, it must be demonstrated that the 100 year flow can be safely conveyed through the pond without overtopping the emergency spillway. 15. The pond does not appear to have very much room if more space is needed at the detailed design stage; therefore, we have concerns that the Draft Plan may need to be revised to accommodate additional SWMF features in the future. There are not enough details shown to ensure that the pond block has been sufficiently sized. For instance: • There are limited grading details to confirm the pond has accounted for existing boundary grades. • We defer to the City of Pickering regarding their SWMF design criteria; however, we note that there appears to be missing typical features per their guidelines such as: access road to sediment forebay and spillways, and sediment drying area. These features typically result in additional land requirements in the SWMF block. 16. The rainfall hyetograph used for the 25 mm storm appears incorrect. The first row corresponding to 0.17 hrs should show 2.17 mm/hr not 0.00 mm/hr, also the Ptotal should be 25.00 mm not 25.02 mm. 17. The table on Figure 6 states that the Extended Detention Discharge is 0.010 m3/s, however the calculations and text show that it is 0.009 m3/s. Please revise for consistency. 18. The calculations in Appendix D need to be revised to demonstrate compliance with the criteria. The depth increment is too large to confirm at what elevation the required extended detention volume occurs and whether the required 120 hour detention time is achieved at that point. It appears to occur between 192.70 and 192.80. At elevation 192.70 the discharge rate shown is 0.010 m3/s, which is greater than the required rate of 0.009 m3/s and therefore the criteria is not met. It should be clearly demonstrated that both the unitary volume designed for 120 hour drawdown time and unitary flow rate have been checked, and that the most conservative (lowest) flow rate is used in the preliminary design. 19. We recognize that a 75 mm diameter orifice is proposed, and that this is often the smallest preferred orifice diameter per municipality criteria. It appears that in order to achieve the criteria a smaller orifice may be required. Please provide design solutions or confirmation by the municipality that an orifice diameter smaller than 75 mm will be accepted so that the required discharge rate criteria can be met. Drainage 20. There are significant major system drainage areas directed to the cul-de-sacs near the northwest corner of the site. Please identify on the plans whether flows are proposed to outlet to the west via an overland flow route, or if this flow is being captured by the storm sewer system. We have concerns that there could be significant disturbance in the NHS to provide an overland flow route to the West Duffins Creek. This should be investigated, discussed, and shown on the plans in the revised FSSR. 71 Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP - 4 - July 12, 2016 C:\Users\steve.heuchert\Desktop\54506 TRCA Letter to Pym July 12 2016.docx 21. Figure 4 and the preliminary pond design calculations include Blocks 25 and 30 in the sizing for the pond. Based on the proposed contours of Block 25, it appears that the majority of the block will drain by sheet flow into the pond and some may not drain to the pond at all. We understand from OPA 22 that this block is intended to be an elementary school. There is no storm sewer shown adjacent to the block to service the school, so it is unclear how it is to be serviced. This should be clearly identified on the plans. If it is a school block, then it is important for the drainage to be directed to the sediment forebay for treatment in the SWMF. 22. Block 30 appears to not drain to the pond at all. Please clarify the intended drainage of this block, as well as the expected land use. 23. The development is mostly in Catchment 7 per the Duffins Creek Hydrology Update, and a small portion in Catchment 8, draining to Catchment 7. As such, the unitary release rate and unitary storage volume are to be calculated based on the pre-development drainage area (i.e. excluding the area within Catchment 8). 24. Figure 4 shows the entire development boundary as the drainage area to the SWM Pond. There are a number of walk-out lot types, of which the rear yards do not typically drain to the storm sewer. Please clarify how the rear yards are intended to drain, and update the drainage figure and calculations if necessary. 25. It is unclear how the Open Space Block 35 will drain. This area is shown on Figure 4 to drain to the pond, but it does not look like areas of it will be able to do so based on the proposed grading plan. The drainage plan should be revised to clearly identify how each area is proposed to drain. In addition, we recommend that the municipality examine the long term stability of Block 35 to ensure no impact on the adjacent lots in the long term, and to “square off” the lot boundaries so that the division between the private lots and the assumed public ownership of Block 35 is clear. 26. The hydrology modelling shows that 0.54 ha of drainage area labelled “Uncontrolled Regional Road Drainage” is conveyed to SWMF #71. This area should be identified on Figure 4. Runoff from the Regional Road needs to be treated for water quality and erosion control. Either update the calculations to include this area, or clarify how the drainage area will be treated. This drainage area needs to be discussed in the report. Grading 27. At the northwest road bend of Block 10, there is a 4.5 m difference between proposed and existing grading at the limit of the NHS. The proposed grading in the NHS should be identified on the plans. OPA 22 states that minor grading to accommodate development adjacent to the Natural Heritage System is allowed provided that “the extent of the grading in the Natural Heritage System is as minimal as possible…”. In this case the extent of the grading is very large and there is an opportunity to shift the grading from the NHS to the development block and adjust the Draft Plan accordingly. Similarly, there is a 1.4 m grade difference between proposed and existing at the northwesterly cul-de-sac. Is this to be accommodated through grading or a retaining wall? Section 4.6 of the FSSR discusses the grading intrusions, and refers to Figure 5 to identify the grading intrusion; however, the grading appears to be missing from the Figure. Please provide conceptual grading on the plans. 72 Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP - 5 - July 12, 2016 C:\Users\steve.heuchert\Desktop\54506 TRCA Letter to Pym July 12 2016.docx We also note that there is a large change of grade between the cul-de-sacs and the Open Space Block 35. These should be identified on the functional grading plan. LID measures 28. We note that the LID plan relies on perforated storm laterals and that the City has noted previous concerns with them. If the City does not support the use of the perforated storm laterals, then alternative LID measures must be demonstrated to be feasible. 29. Block 37 is identified as “Stormwater – LID”, but this block is not discussed in the report, nor does the Functional Servicing Plan identify any LID measures or show how runoff is conveyed to the LID. Clarification is required. Feature Based Water Balance (FBWB) 30. Please provide the digital model for review. 31. Figure E1 should be updated to show the most accurate contour information to confirm the existing drainage area to the wetland. It appears that the submitted FBWB is unchanged from the MESPA. The final FBWB needs to be updated based on drainage areas from a detailed topographical survey. We expect that this will be completed at this stage to ensure there are sufficient lots (roof areas) based on the Draft Plan of Subdivision draining to the wetland to augment flows. Figure E1 should be updated to identify this drainage area on the figure. 32. It is unclear on Figure E1 what the proposed drainage boundary to the wetland is (ie. The area in NHS as well as rear yards directly to wetland). This should be clearly identified on the figure. 33. A chart showing all of the minimum and maximum monthly runoff volumes for both existing and proposed conditions would be helpful. Please update the chart in Appendix E to include all of this information. 34. It is not clear from the analysis whether or not a better result could be achieved by adding or subtracting roof area. Due to the sensitivity of the system, we would like to better understand whether a better balance can be achieved. Thus, please provide an analysis showing that increasing or decreasing the recommended roof area does not improve the water balance results. Trails 35. The Seaton Trails Master Plan illustrates a neighbourhood connector trail around the outer edges of the subdivision (see below), with a trailhead in the vicinity of SWMF #71. The pond design and LID locations should consider the future installation of this trail system. For example, will the LIDs around Remnant Parcel #2 interfere with the ability to install a trail? Will the grading in the NHS allow this trail to be built? Will the SWMF access road be used as a public trail? Will the trailheads connect? The design and location of the future trail system in Seaton should be considered as it should not be assumed the future trail will be located within the natural features. 73 Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP - 6 - July 12, 2016 C:\Users\steve.heuchert\Desktop\54506 TRCA Letter to Pym July 12 2016.docx The applicant is requested to provide a cover letter outlining how Comment Nos. 1 to 35 have been satisfied, along with a revised submission, prior to TRCA issuing conditions of draft plan approval or recommending approval of the zoning by-law amendment. We trust this is of assistance. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Steven Heuchert, MCIP, RPP, MRTPI Associate Director, Development Planning and Regulation Planning and Development Extension 5311 cc. Graham Martin, OILC (via e-mail) Emma West, planningAlliance (via e-mail) Marilee Gadzovski, City of Pickering (via e-mail) Irena Marouchko, City of Pickering (via e-mail) 74 RES.#A49/17 - DURHAM COMMUNITY CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN Approval in principle of the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan, and direction for TRCA staff to participate in Phase 3: Program Approval and Funding. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS the Durham Community Climate Adaption Plan (‘the Plan’) was approved in principle by the Durham Regional Council on December 14, 2016 (Council Report #2016 COW-103); AND WHEREAS the Plan is generally consistent with objectives and actions stated within Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) 10 Year Strategic Plan to address the challenges of a changing climate; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff provided in-kind support through participation in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Plan’s development, as well as provided comments and a letter of support regarding the draft Durham Community Adaptation Plan in fall 2016; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan be approved, in principle; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to participate in Phase 3, as working group members, to further develop program recommendations within the Plan that allow for informed decisions around TRCA involvement in the implementation of the Plan. AMENDMENT RES.#A50/17 Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the last clause of the main motion be amended to read as follows: AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to participate in Phase 3 to further develop program recommendations within the Plan that allow for informed decisions around TRCA involvement in the implementation of the Plan. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS the Durham Community Climate Adaption Plan (‘the Plan’) was approved in principle by the Durham Regional Council on December 14, 2016 (Council Report #2016 COW-103); 75 AND WHEREAS the Plan is generally consistent with objectives and actions stated within Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) 10 Year Strategic Plan to address the challenges of a changing climate; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff provided in-kind support through participation in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Plan’s development, as well as provided comments and a letter of support regarding the draft Durham Community Adaptation Plan in fall 2016; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan be approved, in principle; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to participate in Phase 3 to further develop program recommendations within the Plan that allow for informed decisions around TRCA involvement in the implementation of the Plan. BACKGROUND Work on Durham’s Community Climate Adaptation Plan began in the fall of 2013 with the approval by the Durham Regional Roundtable on Climate Change. TRCA staff was invited to participate in Phase 1: Assessment in the spring of 2014 on the following Expert Task Forces: Flooding Sector, Natural Environment Sector and Human Health Sector. The other conservation authorities (CA) within Durham Region were also invited and participated to similar extents. Phase 1 involved the understanding of climate impacts to the sector(s), and identification and scoring of vulnerabilities and risks from climate change on components of each sector based on the SENES Consultant Ltd’s study of future climate projections, existing information and expert knowledge. TRCA staff continued to be involved in Phase 2: Program Design during 2015/2016 for the Flooding Sector and Natural Environment Sector. The task forces reconvened to develop the programs, including climate actions with roles and responsibilities necessary for addressing high and medium risks identified in Phase 1. A total of 18 sector programs were proposed. Phase 2 also involved a design charrette, held in February 2016, to identify gaps, overlaps, conflicts and improvements to the programs. In fall of 2016, a draft adaption plan was circulated to stakeholders, including TRCA, for final comment. TRCA staff, who did not specifically participate in Phase 1 or Phase 2, reviewed the Plan. TRCA comments focused on the management priorities and responsibilities of TRCA related to flooding and the natural environment, as well as provided suggestions on strengthening integration and closing gaps. TRCA also recognized the Region’s leadership and TRCA’s commitment to support efforts in securing the needed long term and sustained funding for plan implementation. Information from the charrette and comments from the stakeholder review process were compiled into an integrated and comprehensive Community Climate Adaptation Plan for presentation, and ultimate approval in principle, to Regional Council in December 2016. TRCA received a request from Durham Region for the Authority to approve in principle the Durham Plan and direct staff to participate in Phase 3. 76 From the different sectors, the following programs identified TRCA as having a potential role and responsibility at the implementation phase. Depending on the program, TRCA’s role may be to lead or support; and occur in partnership with other stakeholders (e.g. redefining flood hazards would be led by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, whereas addressing urban flooding would be in partnership with municipalities and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change). Programs with Proposed Role and Responsibility for Conservation Authorities Sector Program Cross-Sectoral Protect our outside workers Building Sector n/a* Electrical Sector Asset protection against flooding Flood Sector Address urban flooding Redefine Flood Hazards Improve flood forecasting, warning and emergency response Address riverine flooding Human Health Sector “Cool Durham” heat and reduction program Road Sector Adaptive Culverts and Bridges Natural Environment Sector Achieving Climate Resilience in the Natural Environment * No direct role for CA’s has been identified in the Plan however, TRCA and its Ontario Climate Consortium through their network in the building resilience sector, will be able to support Durham as needed. The initiation of Phase 3: Program Approval and Funding is set to launch on May 8, 2017. Working groups will be established amongst the various stakeholder agencies who will further refine the 18 programs and associated actions to the point whereby those agencies with responsibility can make informed decisions within their risk management policies and budget/business planning processes on Plan implementation. In addition to refining the programs, Phase 3 will also involve the collaborative development of a reporting framework by June 30, 2017. The objective is to create an efficient process that will enable all responsible agencies to easily report their progress in developing, approving and implementing specific programs in the Plan. Hard copies of the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan will be available at the meeting and an electronic copy of the Plan, with details on actions within each program, can be downloaded at www.durham.ca/climatechange. RATIONALE TRCA's expertise and ongoing work assisting many of TRCA’s partner municipalities in assessing the vulnerability of their assets to climate change, ongoing environmental monitoring and management (e.g., natural heritage and hazards), flood plain management and flood remediation, emergency management, erosion monitoring and management for municipal infrastructure, urban forest studies, and evaluation of green infrastructure technologies and community engagement, all lends itself well to TRCA's continued participation and collaboration with Durham to enhance the resiliency of watersheds in this end of the jurisdiction. 77 TRCA also leverages a network of connections with academic researchers and scientists in order to produce rigorous and defensible climate information. Currently, this work is spearheaded through a distributed collective of scientists, researchers and practitioners from across Ontario working under the umbrella of Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC). Services of OCC are designed to help municipal and industry decision makers formulate strategic, coordinated and scientifically-informed responses to extreme weather. Further, TRCA would advance our strategic goals around climate change (e.g. Leadership Goal 2: Manage our regional water resources for current and future generations) and staff involvement would help ensure TRCA’s perspectives on priority actions, leadership and necessary funding for implementation are taken into account. Finally, understanding the details and priorities coming from this final planning phase will be critical for in-year and annual budget discussions with Durham Region that maximize alignment and opportunity in future years. The importance of establishing a reporting a framework and setting appropriate metrics or indicators for measuring plan implementation is identified as a key priority in the Plan. Such a reporting tool also aligns with TRCA’s commitment to improved performance reporting and adaptive management processes. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff to attend the launch of Phase 3 on May 8, 2017 and complete follow-up actions as required. Staff to participate in Phase 3 (commencing May 8, 2017), as working group members; and use information and tools derived from Phase 3 to inform TRCA budget and business planning processes in 2018 and future years. Staff to provide input on the development of a reporting framework with a target date of June 30, 2017. Progress report brought to the Authority as appropriate for further action. Report prepared by: Christine Tu, extension 5707 Emails: ctu@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Christine Tu, extension 5707 Emails: ctu@trca.on.ca Date: April 3, 2017 ______________________________ 78 RES.#A51/17 - CORNERSTONE STANDARDS COUNCIL CERTIFICATION FOR AGGREGATE Procurement of Responsible Aggregate Materials. Overview of the Cornerstone Standards Council’s voluntary certification system for responsible aggregate extraction and TRCA consideration of CSC certified aggregate suppliers in future tenders. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS the Cornerstone Standards Council (CSC) has developed a voluntary certification system with industry leaders, environmental champions, community groups and First Nations; AND WHEREAS voluntary certification systems have been found to successfully improve responsible practices in other resource sectors; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) demonstrate its support for the Cornerstone Standards Council Certification System by offering certified aggregate producers a competitive advantage during TRCA’s tendering process; AND FURTHER THAT the Chair send a letter to the Board of Directors of the Cornerstone Standards Council and TRCA’s municipal partners advising of TRCA’s endorsement and support. AMENDMENT RES.#A52/17 Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: AND FURTHER THAT staff report with a review of the policy within three years’ time. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS the Cornerstone Standards Council (CSC) has developed a voluntary certification system with industry leaders, environmental champions, community groups and First Nations; AND WHEREAS voluntary certification systems have been found to successfully improve responsible practices in other resource sectors; 79 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) demonstrate its support for the Cornerstone Standards Council Certification System by offering certified aggregate producers a competitive advantage during TRCA’s tendering process; THAT the Chair send a letter to the Board of Directors of the Cornerstone Standards Council and TRCA’s municipal partners advising of TRCA’s endorsement and support; AND FURTHER THAT staff report with a review of the policy within three years’ time. BACKGROUND In January 2015 the Cornerstone Standards Council released its Responsible Aggregate Standard (www.cornerstonestandards.ca), launching the world’s first voluntary certification system for responsibly extracted aggregates. CSC encourages aggregate operators to improve their practices by going beyond the minimum requirements set by existing regulations. CSC offers a third-party verification system that provides independent auditing and monitoring of aggregate sites that demonstrate a commitment and achievement of a high environmental and social standard. The CSC is a registered charity with a Board of Directors composed of representatives who have an interest in encouraging more responsible aggregate extraction practices. CSC is committed to fairly representing both industry, as well as environmental and community stakeholders in its decision making process. This balance is confirmed in CSC’s by-laws and reflected in its Board of Directors outlined below. CSC Directors as of November 2016: Lorne Johnson, Schad Foundation (CSC Co-Chair) John Pontarollo, CRH Canada Inc. (CSC Co-Chair) Peter Kendall, Earth Rangers Tim Gray, Environmental Defence Paul General, Six Nations of the Grand River Caroline Schultz, Ontario Nature Wendy Franks, Community member (GTA) Dick Hibma, Community member (Bruce Peninsula) Xavier Guesnu, Lafarge Canada Inc. Ryan Essex, Miller Group Bill Galloway, aggregate consultant Rodney Wilts, Windmill Development Group Thomas Mueller, Canada Green Building Council John Matheson, Strategy Corps CSC’s Responsible Aggregate Standard is composed of seven principles and 37 core requirements that a pit or quarry must demonstrate conformance with in order to be deemed CSC certified. CSC Certified operations raise the bar above legal requirements in the following ways: Commitment to efficient resource use Aggregate operators who are CSC certified commit to the efficient use and conservation of aggregates and other resources (e.g. fuel, energy, water). This is achieved by using fewer materials, reusing materials and employing recycled content whenever possible. Certified operators also pursue optimal use of existing sites and transportation networks. 80 Best operational practices Cornerstone Standards Council reinforces the importance of adopting standard operating procedures (SOPs) for responsible operations. Certified operations must adopt SOPs that address key operating issues (e.g. noise, air quality (vehicle emissions and dust), safeguarding of water, and traffic management) consistent with international best-practices. Meaningful community engagement CSC requires certified sites to undertake meaningful consultation with local communities and other stakeholders. This includes early engagement with municipalities, conservation authorities and other interested parties by creating and resourcing a Public Advisory Committee. Protection of high conservation values CSC requires that new operations that wish to be certified ensure that important natural heritage values and areas (e.g. core areas of municipal plans, natural cliffs) are not negatively impacted by the operation. Enhanced natural heritage systems CSC requires that new aggregate operations that wish to be certified work with conservation authorities, source protection committees, municipalities and other interested parties to ensure that natural heritage systems are identified, adhered to and enhanced, where possible, through rehabilitation and offsetting. There are currently two CSC certified aggregate operations in Ontario. The first to successfully demonstrate conformance with CSC’s Responsible Aggregate Standard is CRH Canada Group Inc.’s Acton Quarry located in Halton Region’s amalgamated Town of Halton Hills. The second is Lafarge Canada Inc.’s Oro Pit in Simcoe County. One other Lafarge operation has undergone an audit by CSC and did not meet full conformance with CSC’s requirements. An additional two operations have signed agreements to undergo a certification audit this coming June and three more operations (including two small operators) are scheduled for pre-assessment audits this summer. RATIONALE Each year TRCA purchases an average of 200,000 tonnes of aggregate, including armourstone, cobble, sand and gravel to support construction and maintenance activities that support TRCA’s flood, erosion control, habitat restoration, trail, road and building projects. Purchase of this aggregate is undertaken in compliance with TRCA’s Purchasing Policy. Section 23 of this Policy outlines TRCA’s commitment to considering social and environmental sustainability when procuring goods and services in accordance with the mandate of the organization and The Living City vision. Specifically this section of the Policy encourages the purchase of products and services that minimize negative environmental impacts over their life cycle. In accordance with this Policy, TRCA staff will be formally identifying preference for aggregate supplied by vendors from a pit or quarry that is CSC certified. This change is proposed to come into effect once five local aggregate suppliers have been certified by CSC. This will include future annual call for tenders for the supply and delivery of aggregate as part of TRCA’s Vendors of Record process. Those vendors responding to TRCA’s tender call will be evaluated as follows: 81 Criteria Points Experience and Corporate Resources 30 Reference Check 20 CSC Certified 5 Reasonableness of Cost 45 Total 100 Suppliers proposing to supply CSC certified aggregate will be awarded five points as part of the evaluation. For contracts that fall outside of the Vendors of Record arrangement, a sustainability clause in TRCA’s procurement documents will identify TRCA preference for CSC certification in awarding the contract. If the lowest bidder is not certified, TRCA will reserve the right to award the contract to the next lowest bidder with certification if their price is a predetermined percentage above the lowest bid. For contracts valued at less than $100,000 the next lowest bidder with certification will be considered if their bid is within 5% of the lowest bid. For contracts valued at more than $100,000 the next lowest bidder with certification will be considered if their bid is within 2% of the lowest bid. TRCA’s identified preference to purchase aggregate produced through certified responsible extraction practices will demonstrate TRCA’s leadership in promoting a green economy. It is also thought that by offering a competitive advantage to those producers that go beyond the minimum requirements set by existing regulations and participating in the voluntary third-party certification system offered by CSC, that more local aggregate producers will be encouraged to become certified. This has been demonstrated in other voluntary certification systems that TRCA has supported such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification, where market demand has been a driver of responsible practices and improved performance. FINANCIAL DETAILS In TRCA’s experience aggregate pricing provided by local certified aggregate producers has remained competitive. The results of the aggregate Vendor of Record procurement process and other future aggregate tenders will provide details on comparative pricing between certified and non-certified sources of aggregate for Authority consideration and approval. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA’s support for purchasing certified aggregate materials meets our Corporate Social Responsibility commitment and is expected to be a market-based driver to increase the level of responsible aggregate extraction within the region. By doing so TRCA will set a precedent that can be followed by other conservation authorities, municipalities and private developers. Staff recommend that the Chair send a letter to the CSC Board confirming TRCA’s support by offering certified aggregate producers a competitive advantage as part of TRCA’s tendering process and further that TRCA’s municipal partners also be notified of our support for CSC certification. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: lstephenson@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: lstephenson@trca.on.ca Date: April 5, 2017 82 RES.#A53/17 - WEST NILE VIRUS MONITORING UPDATE Summary of the 2016 West Nile Virus Monitoring and Surveillance Program and receipt of the annual report - West Nile Virus Vector Larval Mosquito Monitoring Report - 2016. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT the annual report "West Nile Virus Vector Larval Mosquito Monitoring Report - 2016" be received; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to circulate the annual report to the public health units of the regional municipalities of Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto; THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to participate in the regional West Nile virus advisory committees in the regional municipalities of Durham and York; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue larval mosquito monitoring on TRCA-owned land in the summer of 2017. CARRIED BACKGROUND West Nile virus (WNV) is a virus transmitted through mosquitoes to birds and incidentally to humans. In Ontario, the first outbreak happened in 2002 and more recently a significant outbreak occurred in 2012. The annual level of WNV activity and risk of exposure depends on the number of infected bird hosts and the number of adult mosquitos carrying the virus in a given year. WNV outbreaks are difficult to predict, therefore WNV management is focused on prevention and control. At Authority Meeting #3/16, held on April 22, 2016, Resolution #A43/16 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue West Nile virus larval mosquito monitoring in wetlands and stormwater management ponds on TRCA-owned land during the 2016 summer season. As per Authority resolution, WNV surveillance and monitoring activities were implemented in 2016. The following summarizes these activities and results: Summary of WNV Monitoring Program Activities in 2016 TRCA's program continued to implement a "three-pronged" approach including public education, collaboration with regional public health units, and larval mosquito monitoring and surveillance on TRCA properties. Public education activities focused on updating the WNV web page on TRCA’s website, and the distribution of WNV related information to conservation areas and TRCA offices. Collaboration with regional health units required TRCA staff to attend regional WNV advisory committees meetings, share collected data and notify the regions of any sites with high potential risk of WNV. TRCA received an Order in 2016 from the Medical Officer of Peel Regional Health under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7 to assist with the implementation of control measures to reduce the number of mosquito larvae in the Heart Lake Wetland Complex in Brampton. It is anticipated that TRCA will receive a similar Order from the Peel Regional Medical Officer this year. 83 Mosquito larvae monitoring was undertaken at 47 monitoring sites including 41 wetland sites and six stormwater management ponds (SWMPs) across the TRCA jurisdiction from June 1 to August 29, 2016. The 2016 sampling season yielded a total of 7,524 mosquito larvae. Data collected were used to determine potential WNV risk, and appropriate control measures were taken if deemed necessary. Monitoring results showed that most wetlands (37 out of 41, 90%) posed minimal risk for harbouring WNV vector mosquitoes. Most mosquitoes were collected from a few localized hot spots. Five hot spots were identified in 2016: Grenadier Pond in High Park, both Woodland Pond and Topham Pond in Eglinton Flats, Keffer Marsh, and L’Amoreaux Stormwater Management North Pond. All of these sites received larvicide (Bti) treatments by the regional health units as proactive measures to address WNV concerns. It should be noted that these identified sites do not pose any immediate threat to the public; the designation of a "hot spot" only implies that the larval mosquitos found are capable of transmitting WNV to humans once they emerge as adults and have first bitten an infected bird. The proactive nature of this monitoring program and the subsequent action is designed to control and reduce the number of the adult mosquitos available to transmit the virus, thus reducing the potential exposure to humans. Researchers found that drought was the primary climatic driver of increased West Nile virus epidemics, rather than within-season or winter temperatures. Compared to 2015, a rise (33 cases in 2015 and 46 in 2016) in WNV infection rate in humans was observed in Ontario. This is possibly associated with the moderate drought condition experienced in the summer of 2016. As the annual level of WNV activities cannot be predicted, the ability to detect hot spots and subsequently take appropriate control measures continue to highlight the importance of regular and continuous seasonal monitoring of mosquito abundance on TRCA lands. A copy of the Annual Report is available on the TRCA website. Printed copies will also be provided to Members upon request. https://trca.ca/conservation/environmental-monitoring/environmental-monitoring-resource-library /2016-west-nile-virus-annual-report-2/download RATIONALE As a major owner of greenspace, including substantial wetland areas, TRCA has had an interest in the WNV issue. As a measure of due diligence and at the request of regional health units, TRCA has been routinely monitoring larval mosquitoes in TRCA's natural wetlands and selected SWMPs since 2003. The objectives of this monitoring program has been to identify preferred breeding sites of mosquitoes, assess the level of WNV risk, and reduce human exposure to the virus by taking appropriate measures. TRCA's program activities include public education, collaborating with the regional health units and conducting larval mosquito monitoring on TRCA-owned lands. The data collected over the years has been beneficial in guiding management decisions related to wetland protection and creation, land management planning and has assisted the public health agencies with their public education and outreach campaigns. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the 2017 WNV surveillance and monitoring activities is available under the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (Account code 124-34) with capital funding support from the regions of York, Peel and Durham, and the City of Toronto. A small amount of revenue is generated (up to $ 3,000) by the program on an annual basis through the provision of mosquito larvae identification training for regional health staff. 84 Overall this funding will be sufficient to support the 2017 surveillance field work and staff support to liaise with the regional health units and to respond to standing water complaints. If larvicide treatment or site remediation is required as a control measure, the associated costs will be covered through TRCA Land Management funding. In the past years, TRCA partnered with the various regional health departments in order to have sites treated with larvicide in a timely manner and at no cost to TRCA. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue surveillance activities on TRCA-owned lands and identify sites of concern on TRCA property through larval monitoring and advise other TRCA departments on maintenance or management duties required to reduce the number of potential breeding sites for mosquitoes. Staff will continue to liaise with regional health units and participate in WNV advisory committees and will continue to respond to public WNV inquiries, in addition to providing general information for both the public and staff on WNV. Standing water complaints will be reviewed and addressed following the established Standing Water Complaint Procedure. Report prepared by: Jessica Fang, 289-268-3947 Emails: jfang@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Scott Jarvie, 289-268-3941; Jessica Fang, 289-268-3947 Emails: sjarvie@trca.on.ca; jfang@trca.on.ca Date: March 10, 2017 ______________________________ 85 RES.#A54/17 - BROOKBANKS PARK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT Award of Contract #10003248. Award of Contract for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for the replacement of a culvert headwall, installation of a centrifugal concrete culvert lining, completion of channel restoration works, and installation of a replacement bridge for the Brookbanks Park Erosion Control Project, City of Toronto. Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Contract #10003248 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for the replacement of a culvert headwall, installation of a centrifugal concrete culvert lining, completion of channel restoration works, and installation of a replacement bridge for the Brookbanks Park Erosion Control Project, City of Toronto, be awarded to Hobden Construction Company Ltd. (HCCL) at a total cost not to exceed $779,865.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The City of Toronto’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation (PF&R) group contacted TRCA about a failing headwall and associated bank protection at Brookbanks Drive in September 2014 and asked TRCA to investigate preliminary solutions for addressing the erosion concerns. The site is located along Deerlick Creek south of Brookbanks Drive within Brookbanks Park in the City of Toronto. The site features failed gabion basket revetments and an eroding bank which is threatening the stability of an existing asphalt trail. A large approximately 2000 mm culvert extends underneath Brookbanks Drive located at the upstream end of the project area. The culvert features a gabion basket headwall structure and a perched concrete apron at the outlet. The lower sections of the gabion basket headwall have become corroded and undermined which is threatening the stability of the upper portions of the headwall structure. The embankment surrounding the dilapidated headwall has eroded which further adds to instability at the site. TRCA subsequently retained Greck and Associates Ltd. (GAL) through a competitive procurement process under Contract #10000486 which received Chief Executive Officer approval on July 22, 2015 in accordance with TRCA’s Purchasing Policy. GAL’s scope of work was to undertake a hydraulic analysis of the project area and to develop conceptual design alternatives to address erosion along the watercourse and the deterioration of the culvert outlet and headwall. 86 Based on GAL’s findings, three conceptual design alternatives were provided for the channel restoration component with Concept A protecting only the eroding trail on the west bank, Concept C addressing erosion concerns on both banks and Concept B being a solution between A and C. Two alternatives were originally proposed for maintenance of the gabion basket headwall structure which included: concrete parging of the corroded gabion baskets along the base of the structure; or placing large boulders underneath the corroded/undermined gabion baskets to provide temporary relief until a long term solution was developed. On March 22, 2016, the City of Toronto asked TRCA to proceed with a detailed design based on the preferred conceptual design alternative. The City also notified TRCA of a dilapidated pedestrian bridge located at the downstream end of the project area and requested inclusion of bridge replacement works as part of the same contract. During the design process, the original options to address the headwall structure were no longer deemed viable due to the structure’s worsening condition. As a result, GAL recommended that the gabion basket headwall structure be completely replaced with a customized cast-in-place concrete headwall. The City of Toronto was agreeable to this and GAL was instructed to proceed with the detailed design based on this approach. The detailed design package was finalized in February 2017. The works that will be carried out based on the final detailed design package are: removal of the of the existing gabion basket headwall and replacement with a cast-in-place concrete headwall; lining of the existing 2000 mm culvert pipe with centrifugal cast concrete to extend its lifespan; approximately 90 m of channel restoration works featuring armourstone retaining walls, channel bed improvements, and a vegetated boulder revetment; minor realignment of existing asphalt trails; and removal of the existing dilapidated pedestrian bridge and replacement with a new galvanized steel pedestrian bridge. RATIONALE TRCA staff considered undertaking the 90 metres of channel restoration work internally since stream restoration work falls within the Engineering Projects team’s area of expertise, however given the City’s limited budget for this work, it was determined that it would be more cost effective to have all work completed under one contract as the majority of work is outside of TRCA’s area of expertise to install with its own forces. As such, TRCA staff proceeded with issuing the entire scope of work under one Request for Tender process. Tender #10003248 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on Thursday, March 2, 2017 with 63 contractors being registered as full document takers. A mandatory site information meeting was held on March 15, 2017. The mandatory site information meeting was attended by the following contractors: 87 Algonquin Bridge Anscon Contracting Inc. Atlantis Marine Canada Construction Ltd. CSL Group Ltd. Dynex Construction Inc. Galcon Marine Ltd. GMP Contracting Ltd. Hitech Structures Inc. Hobden Construction Company Ltd. Iron Bridge Fabrication Inc. Landtar Construction Inc. Latitude 67 Marbridge Construction Ltd. McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. Metric Contracting Services Corp. MJK Construction Inc. Pop’s Restoration Ltd. R & M Construction South Central Contracting Inc. Ultimate Construction Inc. United Rentals Pump Urkkada Technology Ltd. The Tender closed on March 29, 2017 at 12:00 pm and the Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders that same day with the following results: CONTRACT #10003248 TENDER RESULTS BIDDERS BASE CONTRACT AMOUNT (Plus HST) PROVISIONAL COST FOR CULVERT LINING (Plus HST) TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (Plus HST) Hobden Construction Company Ltd. $629,490.00 $150,375.00 $779,865.00 Dynex Construction Inc. $733,574.00 $150,000.00 $883,574.00 McPherson-Andrews Contracting Limited $804,477.40 $114,120.00 $918,597.40 GMP Contracting Ltd. $1,129,000.00 $248,000.00 $1,377.000.00 South Central Contracting Inc. $1,469,000.00 $120,000.00 $1,589,000.00 Restoration and Infrastructure Division staff reviewed the bid received from HCCL against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of HCCL’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that HCCL is capable of undertaking the scope of work. TRCA staff recommend that Contract #10003248 be awarded to Hobden Construction Company Ltd. for a total cost not to exceed $779,865.00, plus a 10% contract contingency, plus HST as they are the lowest bidder meeting TRCA’s specifications. This project is aligned with Leadership Strategy number two “Manage our Regional Water Resources for Current and Future Generations”, as the proposed works will contribute to maximizing the resilience of our water systems in preparation for predicted changes in climate change and assist with reducing the risk of flooding. Additionally, this project aligns with Enabling Strategy number seven “Build Partnerships and New Business Models.” TRCA has completed similar work on behalf of the City of Toronto multiple times allowing us to demonstrate TRCA’s expertise and capability in performing this critical maintenance, thereby increasing TRCA’s financial resilience. 88 FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within Account #185-86. Report prepared by: Chris Scholz, 416-624-7518 Email: cscholz@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647-808-6542 Email: arehana@trca.on.ca Date: March 31, 2017 89 RES.#A55/17 - SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Request for Budget Increase. Direction to request funding from Toronto Water for the comprehensive review and additional outreach required in support of the completion of the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan Environmental Assessment. Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Michael Di Biase WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has initiated a study under the Environmental Assessment Act to create a system of public spaces along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Bluffer’s Park and East Point Park; AND WHEREAS a Preferred Alternative has been identified which meets the Scarborough Waterfront Project vision and objectives to the best extent; AND WHEREAS the high public interest in the Project, and range of comments received, require the Project Team to undertake a comprehensive review of the Preferred Alternative, and additional public, agency, and stakeholder outreach; AND WHEREAS the outcome and feedback received through this additional review and outreach activities will require subsequent refinements to the Preferred Alternative; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA be directed to request a budget increase from Toronto Water for the comprehensive review and additional outreach being undertaken in support of the completion of the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan Environmental Assessment. AMENDMENT RES.#A56/17 Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT the last paragraph of the main motion be replaced with the following: THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA request a reallocation of funds from the Scarborough Bluffs West Project to the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan Environmental Assessment; THAT TRCA request that the Scarborough Bluffs West Project funds be reallocated; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request a reallocation of necessary funds for completion of the Scarborough Bluffs West Project within the 2018 budget process. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED 90 THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has initiated a study under the Environmental Assessment Act to create a system of public spaces along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Bluffer’s Park and East Point Park; AND WHEREAS a Preferred Alternative has been identified which meets the Scarborough Waterfront Project vision and objectives to the best extent; AND WHEREAS the high public interest in the Project, and range of comments received, require the Project Team to undertake a comprehensive review of the Preferred Alternative, and additional public, agency, and stakeholder outreach; AND WHEREAS the outcome and feedback received through this additional review and outreach activities will require subsequent refinements to the Preferred Alternative; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA request a reallocation of funds from the Scarborough Bluffs West Project to the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan Environmental Assessment; THAT TRCA request that the Scarborough Bluffs West Project funds be reallocated; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request a reallocation of necessary funds for completion of the Scarborough Bluffs West Project within the 2018 budget process. BACKGROUND Toronto City Council on December 16, 2013 adopted, in part, the following resolution (EX.36.117): City Council amend the Toronto Water budget by including $1.5 million for Environmental Assessment work on the Scarborough Waterfront Erosion Control and Access Plan, with funding from the Toronto Water Capital Reserve. At Authority Meeting #3/14, held on April 25, 2014, Resolution #A36/14 was approved, in part, as follows: … THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with the City of Toronto to initiate the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan Individual Environmental Assessment. Based on this direction, TRCA, in partnership with the City of Toronto, has initiated a study under the Environmental Assessment Act to create a system of public spaces along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Bluffer’s Park and East Point Park, which respect and protect the significant natural and cultural features of the Bluffs, enhance the terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and provide a safe and enjoyable waterfront experience. The Scarborough Bluffs are an iconic feature of the Lake Ontario shoreline; however, due to limited access and existing public safety hazards, the water’s edge along this section of the waterfront is not formally accessible to the public. 91 The Scarborough Waterfront Project will fulfill the strategic recommendations of previous planning processes and the City of Toronto Council direction, to address the existing risk to public safety and public infrastructure due to erosion along the shoreline, and providing for increased public space while improving and enhancing the natural heritage system. The Project supports and advances TRCA’s The Living City Policies, and the City of Toronto policies laid out in the Official Plan, which recognize the need to balance waterfront revitalization, public access, and an open space “aesthetic” with natural heritage and natural hazard protection and management. Public ownership of waterfront lands is a key means to managing natural hazards, while providing accessible open space integrated with opportunities for public enjoyment and aquatic and terrestrial enhancements. The study is being undertaken in accordance with the provincial Environmental Assessment Act (1990), as an objectives-based Individual Environmental Assessment (EA), where the Project vision and objectives were established early in the planning process through extensive public and stakeholder consultation, and are used to describe the Project and structure the development and evaluation of Alternatives. Ultimately, a Preferred Alternative was identified which best meets the vision and objectives. The Project objectives are to: Protect and enhance terrestrial and aquatic natural heritage features and linkages; Manage public safety and property risk; Provide an enjoyable waterfront experience; Consistency and coordination with other initiatives; and, Achieve value for cost. RATIONALE The Project has received significant public interest, with more than 150 participants at each of the Public Information Centres (PIC), and over 2,400 public comments received through over 300 submissions and the Public Information Centres. Comments received reflect a wide range of viewpoints, including a desire for a formal, continuous trail along the full length of the shoreline, a desire for no additional formal access along the waterfront, and support for the Preferred Alternative as presented at the second PIC on June 28, 2016. Given the high public interest in the Project, and the range of comments received, the Project Team is undertaking a comprehensive review of the Preferred Alternative, and additional public, agency, and stakeholder outreach. Further, a proposal for an Alternate Plan has been submitted to the Project Team for consideration, and additional review is underway to assess this Alternate Plan against the Project objectives and the Preferred Alternative. The outcome and feedback received through this additional review and outreach activities will inform subsequent refinements to the Preferred Alternative, which may include reducing the overall footprint; further enhancing the aquatic habitat; increasing the length of sandy shoreline maintained; and minimizing, where appropriate, the size of cobble required along the proposed cobble beaches. These refinements are anticipated to be presented to the Stakeholder Committee and as part of a Public Information Centre in late-spring. 92 FINANCIAL DETAILS Following formal Project initiation in mid-2014, Project expenditures to December 2016 were approximately $2.2 million, with expenditures primarily occurring through 2016 in association with the planning and engineering associated with the development and evaluation of Alternatives, ongoing public outreach, and preparation of the Environmental Assessment report. Approximately $800,000 is remaining within the original budget. As a result of the additional review and outreach activities proposed to be undertaken through 2017, projected expenditures to completion are estimated at $1.8 million, including 20% contingency and administration. As a result, an increase in Project budget of $1 million is required to support the completion and submission of the Environmental Assessment. The following table provides an overview of the proposed budget increase: Component Budget Increase Requested Project Management $150,000 Coastal & Geotechnical Engineering $230,000 Facilitation $10,000 Terrestrial & Aquatic Ecology $80,000 Additional Technical Support $80,000 Public Consultation $220,000 Mapping & Graphics $30,000 EA Report $100,000 MOECC Review Period Support $100,000 Total $1,000,000 Funds will continue to be tracked through the 204-xx account code series. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following the upcoming Stakeholder Committee meeting and Public Information Centre in late-spring, the draft EA report will be finalized, and a draft submission will be made to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for a 30-day public and agency review period. Subject to approvals from the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, and City of Toronto Council, it is anticipated that a formal EA submission will be made to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change by late-2017 for a 30-day public and agency review period, and formal Minister’s review period. Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney@trca.on.ca Date: April 4, 2017 ______________________________ 93 RES.#A57/17 - KENNEDY VALLEY TRAIL, SOUTH ETOBICOKE SHERWAY GARDEN TRAIL AND VALLEYWOOD PHASE 2 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECTS Contract #10004169 Design Build Services for Three Pedestrian Bridges. Award of contract for engineering and construction of three pedestrian bridges at the Kennedy Valley Trail Project, South Etobicoke Sherway Garden Trail Project and Valleywood Phase 2 Project. Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Contract #10004169 be awarded to Hobden Construction Company Ltd., for the engineering and construction of three pedestrian bridges for the Kennedy Valley Trail Project, South Etobicoke Sherway Garden Trail Project and Valleywood Phase 2 Project, at a total cost not to exceed $404,650.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT the award of contract be conditional upon entering into a memorandum of understanding between TRCA and Argo Development Corporation, and confirmation of available funding for the project; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA is involved in a joint initiative between City of Brampton, Region of Peel, City of Toronto and the Town of Caledon to implement trail linkages between the adjacent municipalities along Etobicoke Creek. The proposed trail linkages will provide an inter-connected system of active transportation routes to major destinations and allow an opportunity to implement various restoration projects. Potential restoration projects may include; wetland creation, riparian enhancements, and habitat works. These trail enhancements will help to promote the Etobicoke Creek trail system as a safe, sustainable and efficient means of active transportation for various trail users. Three pedestrian bridge crossings are required in each of the adjacent municipalities. Therefore staff is requesting to proceed with retaining a qualified contractor to carry out engineering and construction services for the detailed design, fabrication and construction of the three pedestrian bridge crossings. 94 RATIONALE Design-Build Request for Proposals (RFP) for general contractors for Contract #10004169 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on Thursday, March 10, 2017. The submissions were evaluated on a weighted scoring system consisting of a minimum set of criteria (70% technical criteria and 30% financial criteria). The evaluation criteria included the following: Experience, qualifications and availability of consultant and its employees proposed for the Services; Consultant’s understanding of the Services, Project and Scope of Work; Experience with similar projects; Proposed approach and methodology for the coordination of services including an assessment of any anticipated difficulties and the proposed approach to overcome them; Reasonableness of cost. Request for Proposal documents were received by the following 12 general contractors: Hobden Construction; Ontario Construction; CSL Group; Bridgecon Construction; Metric Contracting; Four Seasons Site Development; Lancoa Contracting; MTS Architectural Ltd.; Iron Bridge Fabraction; FACCA; Landtar Construction; and McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. Proposals closed on April 3, 2017 at 12:00 pm and were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee on Monday April 3, 2017. Members of the evaluation committee consisting of TRCA staff (Mark Preston, Michelle Guy, James Dickie and Vince D’Elia) reviewed the submitted proposals and evaluated them based on a set of minimum criteria as described above. The results of the evaluation are as follows: BIDDERS Technical 70% Financial 30% TOTAL TENDER AMOUNT (Plus HST) Overall Ranking Hobden Construction 3 1 $404,650.00 1 McPherson-Andrews Contracting 1 2 $487,948.00 2 Ontario Construction 2 4 $794,470.00 3 Bridgecon Construction 4 5 $855,300.00 4 CSL Group 5 3 $561,195.00 5 Based on the evaluation of the received proposals the four top rank technical proposals were within a 3% difference. Therefore it was determined that combined technical and fee proposal submitted by Hobden Construction Company Ltd. (HCCL) offered the best service for value amongst the general contractors whose technical capacity matched the project needs. 95 Furthermore based on HCCL’s experience with similar design-build bridge projects it was determined that they are capable of undertaking the scope of work for this project. Therefore staff recommends that Hobden Construction Company Ltd. be awarded Contract #10004169 at a total amount not to exceed $404,650.00, to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 10% contingency, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is provided by City of Toronto under account 126-24, City of Brampton under account 117-31 and ARGO Development Corporation, under account 117-33. Funding from Argo Development Corporation will be based on finalizing a memorandum of understanding between TRCA and ARGO Development Corporation. Report prepared by: James Dickie, extension 5906 Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Vince D’Elia, extension 5667 Emails: vdelia@trca.on.ca Date: April 6, 2017 ______________________________ 96 RES.#A58/17 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND Adjacent to 40 Grovetree Road, City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed, CFN 56447. Recommendation that the subject TRCA-owned property, located to the rear of 40 Grovetree Road, in the City of Toronto, Humber River watershed, be retained in TRCA ownership for conservation purposes. (Executive Res.#B15/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT item 7.1 – Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority- owned Land adjacent to 40 Grovetree Road be deferred to a future Executive Committee meeting; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to investigate what erosion mitigation measures may be undertaken to ensure slope stability on this site. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A59/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke Creek Watershed Queen’s Walk Development Limited, CFN 55532. Acquisition of property located south of The Queensway and west of The West Mall municipally known as 2217 The Queensway, in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B16/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 0.58 hectares (1.44 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of The Queensway and west of The West Mall, said land being Part of Lot 14, Concession 3, designated as Part 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 on Draft Plan prepared by Speight Van Norstrand & Gibson Limited on December 20, 2016 under job number 160-0358 municipally known as 2217 The Queensway, in the City of Toronto, be purchased from Queen’s Walk Development Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; 97 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A60/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek Watershed Highglen Homes Limited, CFN 57373. Acquisition of property and a permanent access easement, located north of Toynevale Road and east of Rosebank Road South, municipally known as 460 Toynevale Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B17/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 0.36 hectares (0.89 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Toynevale Road and east of Rosebank Road South, said land being Part of Lot 122, Registered Plan 350, designated as Part 5 on draft Plan prepared by ertl surveyors under project number 16379 together with a permanent access easement containing 0.02 hectares (0.05 acres), designated as Parts 2 and 3 on said draft Plan, municipally known as 460 Toynevale Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from Highglen Homes Limited; THAT the purchase price be the nominal sum of $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A61/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Royal Grand Woodbine Developments Inc., CFN 57374. Acquisition of property located east of Regional Road 27 and north of Rexdale Boulevard, municipally known as 840 Queens Plate Drive, in the City of Toronto, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-202”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B18/17) 98 Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 0.59 hectares (1.45 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Regional Road 27 and north of Rexdale Boulevard, said land being Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part of the Unopened Road Allowance Between Lots 31 & 32, Concession 3 designated as Part 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, & 39 on draft Plan prepared by KRCMAR Surveyors Inc. on January 31, 2017 under job number 08-030 municipally known as 840 Queens Plate Drive, in the City of Toronto, be purchased from Royal Grand Woodbine Developments Inc.; THAT the purchase price be the nominal sum of $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by Royal Grand Woodbine Developments Inc.; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A62/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Pebble Creek Developments Inc., CFN 57441. Acquisition of property located north of Regional Road 7 and west of Pine Valley Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B19/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 1.6628 hectares (4.1 acres) more or less, of vacant land, located north of Regional Road 7, west of Pine Valley Drive said land being Part of Lot 6, Concession 7, designated as Blocks 4 and 5 on a draft M-Plan prepared by Krcmar Surveys Ltd., under Drawing Name 13-136RP04, dated January 16 2017, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Pebble Creek Developments Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; 99 THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A63/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed Cougs (Ajax) Ltd., CFN 57526. Acquisition of property located north of Rossland Road West and west of Church Street, in the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B20/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 1.03 hectares (2.56 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Rossland Road West and west of Church Street, said land being Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3 designated as Blocks 160 and 161 on draft M-Plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited, reference number: 15-25-015-02, dated January 10, 2017 in the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from Cougs (Ajax) Ltd.; THAT the purchase price be the nominal sum of $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ 100 RES.#A64/17 - PROPOSAL TO LEASE TRCA-OWNED LAND Sawmill Sid Inc. 1352 Lakeshore Road East, City of Mississauga Regional Municipality of Peel, Lake Ontario waterfront, CFN 54786. Proposal from Sawmill Sid Inc. to enter into a five-year lease of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned land for the operation of a sawmill including storage of logs, lumber, slabs etc. together with temporary buildings located at 1352 Lakeshore Road East, in the City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel, Lake Ontario waterfront. (Executive Res.#B21/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Sawmill Sid Inc. to enter into a lease agreement for operation of a sawmill located at 1352 Lakeshore Road East, City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Sawmill Sid Inc. in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a lease with Sawmill Sid Inc. for the use of 0.4 hectares (1 acre), more or less, said land being part of Part Lot 5, Concession 3 SDS, located at 1352 Lakeshore Road East, City of Mississauga, Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT the lease with Sawmill Sid Inc. be subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) that the term of the lease be for five years together with one renewal option for a further five year period at the sole option of TRCA; (ii) that consideration be $20,000 per annum with an annual increase of $1,000 throughout the term of the lease plus HST; (iii) that Sawmill Sid Inc. is to be responsible for all approvals required for construction and operation of a sawmill and associated equipment; (iv) Sawmill Sid Inc. shall be solely responsible for any and all costs associated with the construction and operation of a sawmill and associated equipment; (v) any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the TRCA staff and solicitor; THAT an archaeological review is to be completed at the expense of Sawmill Sid Inc. with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action required to implement the lease, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ 101 RES.#A65/17 - PROPOSAL TO LEASE TRCA–OWNED LAND Watershed Realty Inc. 8712 Claireville Conservation Road, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River Watershed, CFN 54482. Proposal from Watershed Realty Inc. to enter into a 10-year lease and contribute capital assistance in restoring a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned heritage listed home located at 8712 Claireville Conservation Road, in the City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B22/17 & Res.#B23/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Watershed Realty Inc. to enter into a lease agreement for operation of a plant nursery and garden centre, located at 8712 Claireville Conservation Road, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Watershed Realty Inc. in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a lease with Watershed Realty Inc. for the use of 1.62 hectares (4 acres), more or less, said land being part of Part Lot 1, Concession 9 ND, located at 8712 Claireville Conservation Road, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT the lease with Watershed Realty Inc. be subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) that the term of the lease be for 10 years together with two renewal options for successive five year periods at the sole option of TRCA; (ii) that consideration be the nominal sum of $12.00 per annum plus HST along with a capital investment of $400,000 for building restoration, to be completed within 2 years of execution of the lease agreement, to the satisfaction of TRCA staff; (iii) that Watershed Realty Inc. is to be responsible for all approvals required for construction and operation of a plant nursery and garden centre; (iv) Watershed Realty Inc. shall be solely responsible for any and all costs associated with the construction and operation of a plant nursery and garden centre; (v) any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by TRCA staff and solicitor; THAT an archaeological review is to be completed at the expense of Watershed Realty Inc. with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA; 102 THAT said lease be subject to approval by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended; THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action required to implement the lease, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to investigate the feasibility of leasing the lands between McVean Drive and this property. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A66/17 - LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION PROJECT Contracts #10003792, #10003793, #10003794, #10003795 and #10003797. Award of contracts #10003792, #10003793, #10003794, #10003795 and #10003797 for the supply and delivery of various aggregates. (Executive Res.#B24/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Contract #10003792 for the supply and delivery of 3,875 tonnes of 225 – 450 mm rip rap stone to the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project (LWCP) in the City of Mississauga, be awarded to Glenn Windrem Trucking for a total unit price of $31.80 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $123,225.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10003793 for the supply and delivery of approximately 2,485 tonnes of 0.4 – 0.8 tonne non-stackable armourstone to the LWCP, be awarded to Glenn Windrem Trucking for a total unit price of $30.80 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $76,538.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10003794 for the supply and delivery of approximately 6,815 tonnes of 2 – 5 tonne non-stackable armourstone to the LWCP, be awarded to Atlantis Marine Construction Canada Inc. for a total unit price of $51.00 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $347,565.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10003795 for the supply and delivery of approximately 6,450 tonnes of 3 – 5 tonne non-stackable armourstone to the LWCP, be awarded to Glenn Windrem Trucking for a total unit price of $45.50 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $293,475.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; 103 THAT Contract #10003797 for the supply and delivery of approximately 1,350 tonnes of 6 – 8 tonne armourstone with flat bottom and top to the LWCP, be awarded to Atlantis Marine Construction Canada Inc. for a total unit price of $51.00 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $68,850.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded suppliers, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A67/17 - LESLIE ELGIN DEVELOPMENTS INC. Request for a Permanent Easement for a Stormwater Pond Outfall Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River Watershed, CFN 57521. Request from Leslie Elgin Developments Inc. and the Town of Richmond Hill to provide a permanent easement for a new stormwater pond outfall, located north of Elgin Mills Road East and east of Leslie Street in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res.#B25/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Leslie Elgin Developments Inc. and the Town of Richmond Hill to provide a permanent easement for a new stormwater pond outfall, located north of Elgin Mills Road East and east of Leslie Street, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Leslie Elgin Developments Inc. and the Town of Richmond Hill in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.04 hectares (0.11 acres), more or less, be granted in favour of the Town of Richmond Hill for a new stormwater pond outfall, designated as Part of Blocks 8 and 9 on Plan 65M-3997, subject to the following terms and conditions; THAT consideration be the sum of $73,194. All legal, appraisal, survey and other costs be paid by Leslie Elgin Developments Inc.; 104 THAT Leslie Elgin Developments Inc. and the Town of Richmond Hill shall fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of Leslie Elgin Developments Inc.; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval, in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of Leslie Elgin Developments Inc.; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained prior to commencement of construction; THAT the transaction be completed on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A68/17 - METROLINX Request for Permanent Easement Required for Culvert and Embankments City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Don River Watershed, CFN 51744. Receipt of a request from Metrolinx to provide a permanent easement required for a culvert and embankments as part of the Go Barrie Double Track Project, located east of Keele Street and south of Langstaff Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Don River watershed. (Executive Res.#B26/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Metrolinx to provide a permanent easement required for a culvert and embankments, located east of Keele Street and south of Langstaff Road, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Don River watershed; 105 AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Metrolinx in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 7.12 hectares (17.61 acres), more or less, described as Part of Block A, Plan M-1801, Part of Block A, Plan M-1832 and Part of Lot 10, Concession 3, designated as Parts 1-8 inclusive on Plan 65R-35943, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be granted in favour of Metrolinx; THAT consideration be the nominal fee of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs are to be paid by Metrolinx; THAT Metrolinx shall fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of Metrolinx; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of Metrolinx; THAT the transaction be completed on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A69/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Michael Di Biase THAT Section II items 10.2.1 – 10.2.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/17, held on April 7, 2017, be received. 106 Section II Items 10.2.1 – 10.2.2 HUMBER FLOODPLAIN MAPPING UPDATE (Executive Res.#B27/17) ACQUISITION OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT BY TRANSCANADA PIPELINES LIMITED (Executive Res.#B28/17) ______________________________ 107 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A70/17 - ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC., LINE 9B REVERSAL AND CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECT CFN 48846. Update on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's written argument submitted to the National Energy Board regarding the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Kelleher THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff report on the National Energy Board (NEB) process regarding the Enbridge Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #8/13, held on October 25, 2013, Resolution #A164/13 was approved as follows: THAT the written argument Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff submitted to the National Energy Board (NEB) on October 3, 2013, regarding the Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, be received; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority regarding the National Energy Board future decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the project. RATIONALE This project involved the reversal of the direction of flow of the 639 km segment of Line 9 from North Westover, Ontario, to Montreal, Quebec (Line 9B), and to increase the capacity of the entire Line 9 pipeline from 240,000 barrels per day to 300,000. The NEB approved Enbridge's application, subject to 30 conditions, on March 6, 2014. Previously, at Authority Meeting #9/12 (amended Resolution #A229/12), staff made a presentation to the Authority on the potential hazards to TRCA watersheds and the Greater Toronto Area’s drinking water supply from a spill of oil from the proposed Line 9 project. The TRCA conditions as they were proposed to the NEB are provided in Attachment 1. The proposed conditions generally centered on the following: Assessment of geohazard risks; Developing baseline conditions for evaluation; Undertaking a detailed spill response modelling exercise; and Designating a spill response team and carrying out emergency response exercises. The NEB approved Enbridge’s application with 30 conditions, several of which are a product of TRCA requests. These conditions are enclosed in full as Attachment 2, and require that Enbridge will, in addition to the other conditions: Demonstrate the valve shutoff system meets or exceeds safety standards; Provide an updated geohazard assessment; and 108 Develop a project specific watercourse crossing management plan to identify current watercourse conditions and proactive response plans. All watercourse crossings along Line 9 from Sarnia to Montreal were to be included in this tabular inventory. As a general standard of approval, Enbridge was also required to obtain approvals from regulatory agencies, including TRCA through its Ontario Reg 166/06, as amended, permitting process when carrying out works in regulated areas. Works Completed to Date Although Line 9 is already in operation, ongoing stakeholder engagement and consultation with TRCA staff is still required, thus conditions applicable to TRCA interests remained in play. TRCA staff was notified of the submission of reports in fulfillment of conditions made by the NEB on April 19, 2016. After this date, TRCA staff continued dialogue with Enbridge, partner conservation authorities and the City of Toronto through this process. One of the NEB conditions was for Enbridge to demonstrate the valve shutoff system meets or exceeds safety standards. As a result, Enbridge installed two additional valves, one on either side of the Don River, which are now operational. TRCA staff has verified that the intelligent valve placement process has been followed, and that sufficient valves have been installed to minimize the overall risk of impacts to all TRCA watercourses. Regarding the NEB’s condition requirement for an updated geohazard assessment, all Line 9 major watercourse crossings were assessed and submitted in June 2016 to the NEB. All major watercourse crossings will be re-inspected in accordance with the re-inspection interval resulting from the assessment. Additionally, Enbridge also uses flood monitoring to determine if a more immediate inspection is required in response to a flood event. To protect the integrity of the pipeline, the environment and the public in proximity to the pipeline, Enbridge conducts patrols of the entire right of way, and the land adjacent to it, for abnormal surface conditions, using methods of walking, driving, flying or other appropriate means. Abnormal conditions are recorded on the line patrol form and provided to the appropriate department within Enbridge for further investigation by qualified personnel. Abnormal surface conditions may include, but are not limited to: unknown construction activities or excavations, disturbances, erosion, ice effects, scour, seismic activity, soil instability or slides, subsidence, loss of cover and evidence of leaks. Enbridge has engaged geotechnical and hydrotechnical consultants to complete the surveys and assessments along Line 9. Enbridge uses a database to manage all geohazard information and the database is updated with each inspection. Geohazards and watercourses will also be monitored per the right of way patrol program and through Enbridge’s survey program. While TRCA staff had no objection, in principle, to the project, staff did have some concerns early on regarding the reactive approach to the detection of erosion problems along the pipeline and emergency management. Also of concern was the lack of site specific response plans to be carried out in the event of a breach or spill. Regarding the NEB condition on developing a project specific watercourse crossing management plan to identify current watercourse conditions and proactive response plans, Enbridge submitted this information to the NEB in June 2016. All watercourse crossings along Line 9 from Sarnia to Montreal were included in this tabular inventory. The document also contains hydrotechnical assessments and associated drawings for each of the major watercourse crossings on Line 9. 109 Scour assessments and flood frequency analysis have been completed at each watercourse crossing based on 50-year, 100-year and regulatory storm flood volumes. TRCA had an opportunity to review the documents submitted in fulfillment of the NEB conditions, and after meeting with Enbridge in May 2016, staff provided comments to Enbridge in July 2016. TRCA staff then received a detailed response to these concerns from Enbridge in September 2016, and met with staff from Enbridge and other affected conservation authorities the following month. At this meeting, staff from Enbridge provided TRCA staff with a presentation of its updated emergency response protocols. After the October 2016 meeting, Enbridge provided TRCA and attending conservation authorities its environmental sensitivity maps and watercourse characterization maps for all Line 9 watercourse crossings. These maps detail environmentally significant areas, highly populated areas and rare species, among other items. Staff also received a high level description of Enbridge’s flood monitoring program, making use of TRCA data and laying out procedures for monitoring, analyzing and reporting flood activity near Enbridge pipelines. It is important to note that when assessing risk, Enbridge considers both the likelihood of a spill event occurring, as well as the consequences and outcome of that spill event. Overall, TRCA staff was satisfied with the level of detail and risk assessment in the presentation from Enbridge staff. Enbridge has also committed to continued engagement with conservation authorities whose jurisdiction contains the Line 9 pipeline. Based on the discussions at this meeting regarding the NEB’s imposed conditions, detailed in Attachment 2, TRCA staff is satisfied with Enbridge’s response to TRCA’s concerns, and considers no further action required at this time. The opportunity remains to present interests to the NEB for future projects, and is continued through the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) spills protocol, as well as with municipalities through emergency management response programs. Additionally, the NEB has since launched a national outreach initiative, so TRCA continues to have an outlet to express technical concerns around pipeline infrastructure. Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, Permits Enbridge has continued to seek permits in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act. Staff has reviewed integrity dig proposals, whereby Enbridge exposes a section of the pipeline to inspect it and carry out any necessary repairs. The most recent of these was issued in 2014 for an integrity dig at the West Don River. TRCA staff has also reviewed permits through the standard or emergency infrastructure works protocol for the pipeline exposures in its jurisdiction. Enbridge obtained a permit in 2012 for its pipeline exposures on the Rouge River under the standard channel, and for the exposure on the East Don River as emergency works. Additionally, an exposure on Newtonbrook Creek, a tributary of the East Don River, was detected and had a temporary repair carried out in 2013. A second temporary repair on the Newtonbrook Creek crossing was later deemed necessary, and in October 2016, Enbridge received another permit to augment the first repair. As those repairs were known to be temporary in nature, TRCA staff met with Enbridge in December 2016 to discuss permanent solutions for this exposed crossing, which is currently at the detailed design stage and will be presented to the Executive Committee for permit approval at a future date. Enbridge has been receptive to TRCA’s requests that a permanent solution to this exposure be developed as soon as possible. 110 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff is now satisfied our issues surrounding the reversal and capacity expansion of the pipeline have been satisfactorily addressed, and a commitment by Enbridge to engage with affected conservation authorities has been made. TRCA staff will continue to work with staff from Enbridge as part of its ongoing monitoring of Line 9. Staff will also continue to work with other affected conservation authorities, and the City of Toronto, whose concerns mirror those of TRCA. TRCA staff will also continue to work with Enbridge on its permits in keeping with TRCA’s emergency infrastructure works protocol. Report prepared by: Daniel Brent, extension 5774 Emails: dbrent@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217 Emails: bwilliston@trca.on.ca Date: April 3, 2017 Attachments: 2 111 Attachment 1 PROPOSED NEB CONDITIONS TRCA PROPOSED CONDITION NO. 1 1. Enbridge shall work with TRCA to develop and undertake a comprehensive geohazard risk assessment and monitoring program that includes: a. Survey and analysis of geomorphic conditions (including the horizontal distance of the pipe from the edge of the watercourse to the side of the pipe) b. Survey and analysis of valley erosion (including the horizontal distance of the pipe from the edge of the valley wall to the side of the pipe) c. Review and analysis of hydraulic data and changes to the hydraulic regime through updates to hydraulic modelling (available from TRCA) d. Incorporate the potential impacts of climate change as related to precipitation distribution and volume, as it is recognized that such changes could alter the hydrologic conditions and the hydraulic regime in TRCA’s watersheds e. Meet with TRCA to discuss development of a monitoring program that is consistent with TRCA’s Erosion Control Monitoring Program f. Update its in-stream and valleyland monitoring procedures and protocols to a level consistent with conservation authority standard 2. Enbridge shall provide TRCA with regular updates on results of comprehensive geohazard risk assessment and monitoring program, updates to the Pipeline Integrity Dig Program, and confirmation of any short-term, long term or emergency permitting requirements in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06, together with approvals under the Fisheries Act . TRCA PROPOSED CONDITION NO. 2 1. Enbridge shall work with TRCA to develop a baseline conditions report that will include an evaluation of: a. Geomorphic conditions, including depth of cover survey at all crossings and stream geomorphic conditions b. Valley slope conditions c. Lake Ontario shoreline conditions d. Areas of natural significance e. Terrestrial and aquatic habitat and species f. Hydraulic or hydrologic conditions g. Precipitation data h. Sources of drinking water i. Public open spaces, including TRCA lands j. Storm sewer catch basin and outfall location evaluations TRCA PROPOSED CONDITION NO. 3 1. Enbridge shall undertake spill response modelling scenarios that include: a. Dry and wet weather conditions b. Detailed watershed response plans c. Access for containment and cleanup in valley and stream corridors, wetlands and Lake Ontario d. A rehabilitation and restoration strategy e. A compensation strategy 2. Enbridge shall establish a Greater Toronto Area based spill response team as an immediate requirement. 3. Enbridge shall undertake emergency response exercises detailed in NEB Condition 23, and to include lake-based, dry weather and wet weather scenarios for each of TRCA’s watersheds and Lake Ontario. 112 Attachment 2 IMPOSED NEB CONDITIONS Of the 30 conditions the NEB imposed on the project in its March 2014 decision, the following are a product of requested TRCA conditions. In addition to the below TRCA related conditions, some of the other conditions the NEB imposed include mandating a management plan for cracking features in the pipeline, and providing details of its emergency shutdown system to ensure they meet or exceed safety standards. 7. Enbridge shall file with the Board, at least 15 days prior to commencing construction, the Project-specific Field Emergency Response Plan that would be implemented during the construction phase, and which includes comprehensive site-specific spill contingency measures that Enbridge would employ in response to accidental spills attributable to construction activities. 16. Enbridge shall file with the Board for approval, at least 90 days prior to applying for (leave to open (LTO), the results of its project to update the Line 9 mainline valves system from Sarnia Terminal to Montreal Terminal using Enbridge Intelligent Valve Placement (IVP) methodology. Through these results Enbridge shall: a. Demonstrate that the new Line 9 valves system meets or exceeds the requirements of CSA Z662-11 clause 4.4 Valve location and spacing, with particular reference to clause 4.4.8, note (2); b. Demonstrate and explain why it believes that the maximum release volume between valves is as low as reasonably practicable, so as to prevent spill volumes that pose a significant risk to the public or the environment including, but not limited to, watercourses, water intakes, urban infrastructure, and ecologically sensitive areas. This assessment shall be based on the Watercourse Crossing Management Plan requested in Condition 18. It shall also address terrain profiles and flow conditions that could interact with the subject crossing in a manner that could present a risk to people or the environment at locations distant from the release; c. Provide explicit criteria and rationale for using 8 manually operated valves (MOV) on the pipeline, instead of remotely controlled valves, and describe how these MOVs are to be maintained, how access to them is to be assured (including during snowing periods), and for each valve provide an estimate of the maximum time to close the valve once an alarm is sounded; d. Describe the procedure to be used to verify the alarm before personnel are dispatched to manually close valves, including a description of any other measures that will be taken with respect to MOVs to reduce spill volumes in the event of a release, and the effect of these measures on the size of spill anticipated; and e. Explain if the use of these MOVs may negatively affect Enbridge’s leak control evaluation for the Project (i.e., Initial Volume out of 95.2 m3, total volume out, assessed incremental Project risk of 2.2%, etc.). 17. Enbridge shall with the Board, at least 30 days prior to applying for LTO, the updated results of its 2013 Geohazard Study for Line 9. Enbridge should include with the Geohazard study a summary of its 2012-2013 depth of cover remediation activities. 113 18. Enbridge shall file with the Board for approval, at least 90 days prior to applying for LTO, a Project-specific Watercourse Crossing Management Plan (WCMP) to establish a management plan identifying the current watercourse crossing conditions and demonstrating how Enbridge will proactively manage watercourse crossings along the existing line. The WCMP shall contain, but not be limited to: a. Criteria, and rationale for developing such criteria, used to identify major watercourse crossings along Line 9, and such criteria shall meet or exceed CSA Z662-11, clause 4.4.8, note (2); b. A tabular inventory of: i. All watercourse crossings along Line 9, from Sarnia Terminal to Montreal Terminal; ii. Those watercourse crossings which do not meet the criteria, with a clear indication of which criteria are not met (for each crossing); iii. Those watercourse crossings which do meet the criteria; and iv. For each watercourse crossing that meets the criteria, the proximity to downstream water bodies, critical infrastructure and environmentally significant areas; c. The location and frequency of monitoring activities, on both a project-wide scale (e.g., fly-overs) and a local scale (e.g., site visits); d. Feedback mechanisms in place to track and update the condition of the crossings within the Environmental Protection Program, as degraded conditions are identified from monitoring activities; e. A description of possible degraded crossing conditions that may occur and their relative risk; and f. A description of how environmental risks to watercourse crossings will be managed, including provision of a responsibility chart for decisions and the hierarchy of decision points identifying which remedial actions would be implemented, for which degraded conditions, and under what timeframes. 20. Enbridge shall file with the Board, at least 60 days prior to applying for LTO, an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for Line 9, which demonstrates compliance with each element of Annex A to the OPR Guidance Notes in respect of each municipality and each high consequence area (which includes major watercourse crossings and densely populated areas). Enbridge shall update the ERP as required by Annex A to the OPR Guidance Notes and file such updates with the Board. 24. Enbridge shall file with the Board, at least 30 days prior to LTO and every six months thereafter for the first three years of operation, an Ongoing Engagement Report for the continued operation of Line 9. The Ongoing Engagement Report will include, at minimum: a. The persons or groups with whom Enbridge offered or sought to consult during the previous six month period; b. The persons or groups actually consulted during the previous six month period; c. Confirmation that Enbridge consulted or offered to consult at least once each year with, at minimum, a representative of each Landowner, Municipality, Conservation Authority, and Aboriginal group whose land, jurisdiction or traditional territory is traversed by Line 9; d. The methods, dates and locations of consultation activities; e. The information that was distributed to persons or groups (for example, health, safety and environmental performance of Line 9); f. A summary of the comments and concerns expressed by potentially affected persons or groups; 114 g. A summary of the response made regarding each of the concerns or comments; h. How outstanding concerns will be addressed; i. How input from persons or groups has influenced the operation of the Project; j. Details regarding discussions with Aboriginal groups; k. The details and results of the consultation undertaken with all persons who may be affected by any changes to the Project; and l. Details regarding discussions with municipal emergency responders. 25. Enbridge shall file with the Board for approval, within 12 months of being granted LTO, an update to the WCMP (WCMP Update), reporting the data which will be used to establish the current watercourse crossing conditions to be used in informing the Plan into the future. The WCMP Update shall contain, but not be limited to: a. A reiteration of both the criteria used to identify major watercourse crossings along Line 9, from Sarnia Terminal to Montreal Terminal, and the tabular inventory including: i. All watercourse crossings along Line 9, from Sarnia Terminal to Montreal Terminal; ii. Those watercourse crossings which do not meet the criteria, with a clear indication of which criteria are not met (for each crossing); iii. Those watercourse crossings which do meet the criteria; and iv. For each watercourse crossing that meets the criteria, the proximity to downstream water bodies, critical infrastructure and environmentally significant areas. b. For crossings which meet the criteria (listed in a)iii) above), provide; i. Channel-specific seasonal hydrographs (1 yr return); ii. Bankfull profiles at crossing locations; iii. Sediment characteristics immediately up- and downstream of the crossing location; iv. Depth of cover and geotechnical assessments of the adjacent banks, to a distance of 100 m; v. Floodplain delineation maps; and vi. Scour assessments and flood frequency analyses at each watercourse crossing based on 50-yr, 100-yr, and regulatory storm flood volumes. c. A description of how the data collected will be used to address the requirements to manage environmental risks, including the effects of the environment on watercourse crossings; d. A schedule for future updates, incorporating monitoring activities provided in Condition 18, frequency of additional data collection and analysis, as well as the protocol for alterations or refinements to the Plan based on the updated watercourse conditions; and e. Evidence of consultation with Environment Canada, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and other appropriate provincial, regional and municipal authorities regarding the WCMP (Condition 18) and the WCMP Update. 26. Enbridge shall file with the Board within 12 months of receiving LTO and every 12 months thereafter for the first three years of operation, a report detailing the status of Enbridge’s continuing education program (including emergency management exercises), liaison program and consultation activities with regulatory authorities, municipalities, Aboriginal groups and any other participating stakeholders that may have a role in responding to an emergency. The report shall include, but not be limited to the following: 115 a. A list of participants, consultation type, locations and timing of the continuing education program (including emergency management exercises), liaison program and consultation activities that have been conducted during the previous 12 month period; b. The persons or groups with whom Enbridge offered or sought to conduct such activities during the previous 12 month period; c. Confirmation that Enbridge conducted or offered to conduct the continuing education and emergency response exercises in the manner, within the timeframes and with the persons or groups described in Annex A to the OPR Guidance Notes; d. A description of any developed agreements or protocols; e. Identification of any issues or concerns raised during the continuing education program (including emergency management exercises), liaison program and consultation activities; and f. Explanation for outstanding issues or concerns, the steps that Enbridge will take or has taken to address or respond to them, or rationale for why no actions were taken. 116 RES.#A71/17- GOOD NEWS STORIES Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities from October 2016 to March 2017. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Kelleher THAT the summary of Good News Stories from October 2016 through March 2017 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As per Authority direction during 2006, a report covering highlights of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities is provided to the Authority. The stories from October 2016 through March 2017 are as follows: October The Living City Campus is the test centre for green building technologies for Vaughan's International Commercialization Centre. Over 100 community members attended a tree planting event at Glencrest Park Renewal project site, involving municipal flood remediation and innovative design as part of the Bayview Glen SNAP (Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan) in Markham. Completed a raingarden installation at Sheridan Nurseries in Burnhamthorpe SNAP in partnership with EcoSource, as a live demonstration and promotion of desired homeowner actions. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation released the due diligence report on the Mouth of the Don project, which has been approved by Toronto Executive Committee. TRCA presented to the GTA West Corridor Advisory Panel and will be submitting a formal response to the Ministry of Transportation regarding Authority recommendations for the highway, should the environmental assessment for this project proceed. Opening held for Etobicoke-Mimico Creek 1.5 km multi use inter-regional trail in Brampton and Caledon. Toronto Remedial Action Plan report was launched. Close to 250 people attended TRCA's first ever Duffins Creek Salmon Festival and brought partners together from Ajax, Pickering, Durham, Ontario Power Authority, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), to celebrate the fall salmon run in Pickering. The event received funding support from the Gosling Foundation through The Living City Foundation. Partners in Project Green (PPG) launched its first Recycling Collection Drive for Waste Reduction Week in Canada. Fifteen organizations from across the GTA (representing 30 locations and over 8,000 employees) collected clothing and e-waste to be diverted from landfill. Through MaterialExchange.ca, PPG facilitated the diversion of 43.5 tonnes of infected emerald ash wood from landfill between Triovest and Sawmill Sid. This material will be converted to lumber and donated to Habitat for Humanity (a donation of approximately $10,000). PPG secured a second research project with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) to investigate and develop strategies that will boost corporate enrolment in the SmartWay Transport Partnership program in the GTA and across Canada. 117 As media partners, PPG contributed to the success of Water Innovation to Action 2.0 and the World Water Tech North American Summit. Over 200 people attended and PPG was given the opportunity to showcase industrial water reuse projects previously developed with Dextran Products and Campbell's Soup. Post-event articles to be published in Water Canada and Environmental Science & Engineering magazines. PPG's Water and Energy team assisted Campbell's Soup and Molson Coors with environmental project funding applications to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs’ (OMAFRA) Growing Forward 2 Program. Both applications were successful and $157,000 was secured. Work has already begun on the two projects which are collectively projected to annually offset 1,900 tonnes of eCO2 through annual energy savings, and reduce annual water consumption by 53,000,000 litres. Kortright Centre for Conservation received $5,000 from York Region Greening Partnership Action Fund to increase green infrastructure through the enhancement and rehabilitation of natural areas in York Region. Kortright is using the funding for pollinator plant garden enhancements at the bee space and the Allan Foster Humming Bird garden on the property. Kortright received $10,000 from the Schad Foundation to improve trails at Kortright. These funds will be allocated primarily to the Forestry path stairs which are in need of major repair and to make improvements to limestone screened sections of trails at Kortright. Kortright received a two-year grant of $182,000 from the Ontario Trillium Foundation to put toward Bee education programming and staff enhancements, Honey Harvest Festival enhancements and needed money for renovations to the bee space. Durham community engagement staff installed a new bee sign in the new pollinator garden at Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park. The new garden and sign accompany the bee boxes that the Rotary Club installed in the spring. The bee boxes were built by a local resident. Overnight school bookings at Lake St. George Field Centre began again for another school year in October, through a continued partnership with York Region District and Toronto Catholic District school boards. Lake St. George finished another successful season of water-based programs using the solar pontoon boat. 2016 saw increased interest from high schools in having their students experience the aquatic science programs available at the Centre. November On November 29, 2016 a "Smashing Event" at TRCA's 17 Mill Street property in Markham launched an innovative partnership between 360°kids and TRCA. Together we are creating a new longer term affordable housing option for youth. Transitions, 360°kids’ long term housing program, is operated with the support of Hockey Helps the Homeless, and takes transitional housing to the next level. 400 community leaders attended The Living City Environmental Dinner put on by The Living City Foundation, raising funds for the work of TRCA. On November 15, 2016 Gord MacPherson was recognized with a Latornell Leadership Award. The award is given to individuals who have made significant contributions in the conservation field through work, career or volunteer experiences. Lakeview received Public Lands Act approval to proceed with land creation on November 8, 2016. In-water works officially commenced on November 18th. Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project funding to commence Essroc Quay design and construction was approved by Toronto Council. 118 TRCA's Engineering Projects group completed site restoration for the second phase of infrastructure protection and natural channel works along Patterson Creek in the Town of Richmond Hill. This work led to the protection of 25 linear metres of Region of York sanitary sewer infrastructure from erosion, through the construction of 65 linear metres of natural channel works. The treatments also included brush-layering and the incorporation of other woody debris to improve aquatic habitat. The Black Creek SNAP in Toronto was included in the 2016 Cities100 publication as one of 100 leading city climate change solutions from around the world. Cities100 identifies leading climate action solutions that also provide other social co-benefits - a core element of the SNAP model. The Engineering Projects Group has replaced a 185 metre long section of retaining wall below Denison Road West in the City of Toronto along the main branch of the Humber River. The new retaining wall stands approximately six metres tall and has been designed to improve slope stability while protecting five houses along the top of slope against the 100-year storm event. The Watershed Services group wrapped up a very successful 2016 community-based restoration field season hosting 71 events, engaging 4,508 participants who contributed approximately 13,000 volunteer hours, planted 12,897 native trees, shrubs and wildflowers, monitored and maintained more than 15,500 square metres of newly restored sites and removed over 6,100 lbs of garbage from watercourses and naturalized areas. TRCA completed a six month long road ecology citizen scientist project to assist with data collection to contribute to the validation of TRCA's Habitat Connectivity Model. Through this project TRCA staff trained and worked with 32 citizen scientist volunteers who contributed just over 700 hours collecting road mortality data at four different locations in Peel Region. The Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition co-hosted a workshop with the Clean Air Partnership on Green Infrastructure Asset Management. The workshop brought together green infrastructure practitioners with asset managers and financial experts to develop a road map for making green infrastructure asset management a reality in Ontario. Kortright's Magical Christmas forest event, now in its fourth year, completely sold out in November. An extra day was added because of demand which also sold out in two days. Kortright's November Owl prowl and Astronomy night events both sold out. Extra nights were added to accommodate the demand resulting in 322 participants enjoying Kortright's natural evening beauty through these experiential learning programs. TRCA, Town of Richmond Hill and York Region celebrated the completion of the main trail in Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve at a trail opening event with 100 attendees. The 5.2 km trail also forms a section of Lake to Lake Cycling Route and Walking Trail, which will provide a continuous 121 km trail from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe when complete. December TRCA successfully negotiated the acquisition of 83 Fishleigh Drive. Paired with the earlier acquisition of 1 Midland Avenue, TRCA has not only increased potential park space but has reduced anticipated erosion abatement costs within the area of Midland Avenue and Fishleigh Drive. The Property group facilitated realtor workshops for two municipalities within the TRCA jurisdiction which highlighted TRCA's roles and responsibilities while increasing industry knowledge of the programs TRCA offers, as well as services offered by the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust and Bruce Trail Conservancy within TRCA's jurisdiction. The Region of Durham workshop was attended by 22 realtors and the York Region workshop was attended by 31 realtors. 119 The Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program received a grant of $57,000 from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), and $15,000 from each of Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation to support the development and dissemination of a predictive modelling tool that will foster improvements in the planning and design of low impact development stormwater management across Ontario. A long-eared owl has been roosting in the spruce trees around TRCA Head Office. TRCA's Canada 150 applications were successful for retrofit of the HVAC and lighting at Black Creek Pioneer Village for $400,000, Kortright Visitor Centre upgrades for $200,000 and Albion Hills Conservation Area beach centre septic upgrades for $100,000. As part of the 2016 PPG Energy Leaders program, 11 member organizations completed 107 projects that will annually result in 40.125.000 ekWh in energy savings, 132,000 m3 of water use reductions, $4.16 million in utility cost avoidances and 4,571 tonnes of carbon emissions reductions. January The Nashville Stewardship Committee hosted a winter bird count at Nashville Conservation Reserve. Forty-three people walked the trails and counted birds, including a raven, with the help of Humber Valley Heritage Trail Association (Kleinburg Chapter) members. Tommy Thompson Park received $161,000 from the Canada 150 grant program to complete 750m of trails and two lookouts around the Cell 2 wetland project. Transaction for 83 Fishleigh completed, a connection for Bluffers Park. Due to the acquisition, TRCA was able to reduce the size of the buttresses. $32,000 grant to the Enabling Accessibility Fund was approved by the Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada. These funds will be used toward an accessible rear exit door, automatic door opener and barrier free back deck at the Claremont Field Centre. Last year was the single largest planting season on record for TRCA. Over 400,000 trees, shrubs and plants were planted. This represents a 43% increase over 2015, largely due to the expansion of the propagation programs for aquatic plants and bioengineering. SNAP received national and international media coverage; a Federation of Canadian Municipalities article, which profiled six proven ideas for creating sustainable communities, and Copenhagen-based freelance journalist wrote a story for a Washington-based Citiscope.org profiling SNAP as one of three innovative city solutions showing local progress on the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Starting a SNAP in partnership with Greenup Peterborough. TRCA will be a fee for service advisor, which Otonabee Region Conservation Authority supports. Green Infrastructure Ontario received an OMAFRA grant for asset management work. $5,000 contract with NRCan confirmed to analyze energy and water use in four federal labs. Results may lead to larger federal building project. 2nd annual Fat Bike Festival at Albion Hills Conservation Area was a success. Despite the cold and icy conditions, attendance doubled over last year with 350 participants. PPG's Energy Leaders group exceeded their annual target, completing 107 projects equating to 4,571 tonnes of eCO2 emission reductions and $4.16 million in annual energy savings. PPG team completed study with NRCan to help them strategize on how to attract companies to participate in national Smartway Transportation Partnership and green their fleet. In the final stages of obtaining funding under the Government of Canada’s Clean Water and Wastewater Fund through the Region of York and City of Brampton. This may lead to $2 million and $1.5 million of additional erosion control and channel re-naturalization works. February Head office project secured funding from all of TRCA’s municipal partners. 120 Female fisher actively using artificial den box in Glen Major forest, a rarity in this area, confirmed by the environmental monitoring program. The 'augmented reality sandbox' has been relocated to Albion Hills Field Centre for use in demonstrating how watersheds function to visiting school groups, with another one being built that will be a corporate resource available for event bookings. Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) received $54,000 from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport through the Ontario 150 Community Celebration Program to celebrate Canada’s 150th birthday with Party Like its 1867on Canada Day 2017. BCPV received $50,000 from the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (Department of Canadian Heritage) to replace the artifact environmental control system. These dollars match those awarded earlier by the Culture Build Investment Program (City of Toronto) with the result that the entire cost of the system replacement is covered. MNRF is increasing the Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) grant from approximately $400,000 to $750,000 for flood infrastructure and erosion projects. The additional $350,000 is for the Denison Road Major Erosion Control Maintenance. For a third consecutive year, ecommerce revenue grew in excess of 85% and now includes permit fees, self-service education bookings and a wide array of other new categories. Ontario Climate Symposium registration opens, with the event being held at York University on May 11- 12, 2017. Projected registration is 300 delegates, which would double last year’s event. Province of Ontario agreed to accept proposed name of Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve. TRCA released The Living City Report Card 2016, the first five-year update to the original 2011 report card on the environmental health and sustainability performance of the Toronto region. March Altona Forest Stewardship Committee was awarded "Best Group Effort" by the City of Pickering's 2016 Celebrating Sustainable Neighbourhoods program. The award is accompanied with a $10,000 enhancement grant that will be used to raise the profile of a neighbourhood entrance to Altona Forest off of Autumn Crescent to further encourage community members to get educated and experience the forest. Toronto Pearson's electric vehicle charging station installations are complete with the 10 Level 3 DC fast chargers and 22 Level 2 ports now open to the public. Through PPG’s Material Exchange, Grand and Toy donated approximately three pallets of paper and envelopes to the Toronto District School Board's (TDSB) Arts Junktion for further distribution to schools. This donation diverted 3.2 tonnes of paper, an estimated saving of $4,752 for the TDSB. PPG’s Material Exchange platform was recognized in featured article of Solid Waste and Recycling Magazine, profiling a recent material exchange with Runnymede Healthcare Centre that resulted in the reuse of six hospital bathtubs, diverting 1.5 tonnes of material from landfill and saving $110,000 dollars. PPG industrial water reuse project with Dextran Products and Enviro-Stewards was featured in Environmental Science & Engineering article; the project saves approximately 45.45 million litres of process water each year in the City of Toronto combined with a $109,760 of annual utility savings in water/energy costs. Working with York Region Arts Council to explore an artist in residence program at Kortright for York Region artists. 121 Learning Enrichment Foundation’s GreenLEF landscaping social enterprise that helps support re-entry of unemployed workers in to the labour market, will again be providing turf and grounds maintenance services at the Kortright Centre. Two all-terrain wheel chairs were purchased for use at the Kortright Centre through the support of a MEC (Mountain Equipment Co-op) and a Celebrate Ontario Grant. This will enable improved access to the natural features at Kortright for people living with mobility challenges. Approval was granted by TRCA’s Authority Board to pilot "The Nature School", a full time nature based private school operating out of the Kortright Centre. Partnered with Canadian Geologic Survey and the Ontario Geologic Survey for a two-day open house and workshop attended by 200 geoscience professionals from across Ontario. Close to 100 attendees from 28 different organizations attended our annual Floods Happen workshop, exchanging knowledge and experience to better prepare for flooding. The acquisition of three properties in Palgrave village belonging to Mr. Douglas Reddington has been completed. Mr. Reddington has generously donated the lands through the Ecological Gifts Program administered by Environment Canada. These properties link TRCA lands to the north and south. 743 participants from across North America attended the 2017 TRIECA conference on stormwater, erosion and sediment control presented by TRCA and Canadian chapter of the International Erosion Control Association. The Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC) was successful in obtaining $40,000 grant from MOECC to provide climate change training and incorporate climate change principles into the areas of engineering and planning; conference is sold out. The Toronto Port Authority advised that they are supportive of the Port Lands detailed design for the Essroc Quay land creation as part of the permit process. City of Toronto has approved $2 million for TRCA, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and the City to undertake the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Class Environmental Assessment near the BMW site in the Lower Don. This is to remove remaining flood risk to urban lands in the Lower Don. Lakeview Waterfront Connection key milestone of closing Cell 1 was completed before March 31st fisheries window. Major maintenance in both the Malton and Yonge/York Mills Flood Control Channels has been completed, restoring flow conveyance and significantly reducing flood risk in these areas. MNRF Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) funding increased by $130,000, for a total of about $870,000. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: April 4, 2017 ______________________________ 122 Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A72/17 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended item 10.3, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #2/17, held on April 7, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:55 a.m., on Friday, April 21, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer 123 Authority Meeting #4/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, May 19, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:36 a.m. PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ron Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Chris Fonseca Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Colleen Jordan Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member ABSENT Michael Di Biase Member Jennifer Drake Member Paula Fletcher Member Jennifer Innis Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member RES.#A73/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Glenn Mason THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/17, held on April 21, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 124 DELEGATIONS 4.1 A delegation by Jim Robb, General Manager, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, in regard to item 7.3 - Toronto Wildlife Centre. 4.2 A delegation by Nathalie Karvonen, Executive Director, Toronto Wildlife Centre, in regard to item 7.3 - Toronto Wildlife Centre. RES.#A74/17 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT above-noted delegations 4.1 and 4.2 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ CORRESPONDENCE 6.1 An email dated May 16, 2017 from Jim Robb, General Manager, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, in regard to item 7.3 - Toronto Wildlife Centre. 6.2 A letter dated May 16, 2017 from David Michael Bastoli, resident, 1185 Vanrose Street, Mississauga, in regard to item 7.3 - Toronto Wildlife Centre. 6.3 A newsletter from the Canadian Green Building Council, in regard to CaGBC's Zero Carbon Building Pilot Program. 6.4 An email dated May 18, 2017 from Ann Rohmer, CP24 Toronto, in regard to item 7.3 - Toronto Wildlife Centre. RES.#A75/17 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti THAT above-noted correspondence 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4 be received. CARRIED RES.#A76/17 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT above-noted correspondence 6.3 be received. CARRIED 125 126 Plan policies during the creation, management and administration of the National Rouge Park; 3) ‐ Create a real or perceived conflict of interest, since TRCA is essentially acting like a co‐proponent, when it is also has responsibilities as a public regulator and public property manager; 4) ‐ Be premature since the federal Rouge NU Park legislation is being amended to prioritize ecological integrity and the national park management plan has not been finalized; 5) ‐ Have negative implications for wildlife habitat connectivity (i.e. 10 foot fencing) and species at risk within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System, contrary to Greenbelt and Rouge Park policies; 6) ‐ Have possible negative implications for the known aboriginal burial site on the property and perhaps other undetected human remains; 7) ‐ Conflict with Toronto OP s. 4.3 " Natural Areas are to be maintained primarily in a natural state"; 8) ‐ Involve the relocation of an intermittent stream with likely impacts on hydrological features and functions contrary to Greenbelt and Rouge Park policies; 9) ‐ Have a development area of approximately 57% of the developable area, contrary to the Greenbelt Plan's upper limit of 25%, if the area to be enclosed by 10 foot wooden fences and wire pens is included; 10) ‐ Conflict with the "natural state" objectives of Toronto OP and Rouge Park plans due to the proposed obstruction of the landscape with 1000+ metres of 3+metre (10 foot) tall wooden slat fencing. Site Context: The TRCA purchased the property in 2010 for "Rouge Park purposes". The proposed 35,000 square foot Building is located at 6461 Steeles Ave East just east of the Rouge Valley. The site is surrounded by: the Cedarbrae Golf Course within the Rouge Valley to the west; an agricultural area within Rouge Park and the Greenbelt to the east and southeast; Cedarbrae Woods ESA; an ecological restoration area; and the Rouge Valley to the south; the future Steeles Avenue / Markham bypass intersection to the northwest; privately-owned non-Greenbelt development lands on the north side of Steeles Avenue. The site contains an aboriginal burial site; two intermittent streams; a pond used by snapping, painted and map turtles (SAR); barn swallows (SAR) nesting in the existing barn; and habitat restoration sites done by FRW for the Rouge Park / TRCA. According to the proponent's reports, these features and buffers comprise some 10 hectares of the 27 hectare site. The proponent's report omits a new habitat strip north of Passmore Road. Greenbelt Plan The Ontario Greenbelt Plan designates all of the subject Lot 11, Con 5 as "Protected Countryside" with a Natural Heritage System overlay. Section 4.2.2 of the Greenbelt Plan states: "New or expanded partial servicing, where site conditions are suitable for the long‐term provision of such services, is only permitted in the following circumstances: 127 a. Where such servicing is necessary to address failed individual on‐site sewage or water services serving existing development; or b. To allow for infilling and intensification within settlement areas served by partial services... ." Section 4.1.2 of the Greenbelt Plan states that: "Proposals for non‐agricultural uses must demonstrate that: a) the use is appropriate for location in a rural area; b) the type of water and sewer servicing proposed is appropriate for the type of use; c) there are no negative impacts on key natural features and or key hydrologic features or their functions; d) there are no negative impacts on the biodiversity or connectivity of the Natural Heritage System.” Toronto's Official Plan Land Use Plan Map 22 designates the subject property as “Natural Areas”, and the western part of the property is identified as part of the Natural Heritage System (Map 9). Section 4.3 of the Toronto OP states that Natural Areas are to be maintained primarily in a natural state. OPA Section 3.4 states that development is generally not permitted in the natural heritage system. National Rouge Park Legislation The proposed TWC building site is located within the proposed National Rouge Park. The legislation for the National Park is being updated to state: 6 (1) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, must be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of the Park. Ecological integrity has two key elements: 1) the protection and restoration of native biodiversity and natural processes; and 2) the minimization of unnatural stressors. The construction and operation of this large TWC building, parking area, and fenced enclosures near the Rouge Valley, would create unnatural stressors which would interfere with the protection and restoration of native biodiversity and natural processes. Spam Phish/Fraud Not spam Forget previous vote 128 35,000 ft2 Toronto Wildlife Centre Building Proposal Beside Rouge Valley in the Greenbelt in Rouge Park Input by Friends of the Rouge Watershed (FRW) As a Rouge Park and Greenbelt guardian, FRW tests the appropriateness of developments, even when they have a commendable purpose, like the TWC. The TWC's planning reports indicate that the proposal involves: building a 35,000 square foot (football field size) two story building just east of the Rouge Valley; building a parking area for 50 vehicles and two buses just east of the Rouge Valley; a building area, parking area, driveway, surfaced areas and septic field occupying 430,500 ft2 (4 ha); partial servicing - private water pipeline ($1 million?) under Steeles Road allowance and septic field; creating several large compounds (645,800 ft2, 6 ha) surrounded by "ten foot tall wooden slat" fences; creating, within the compounds, dozens of outdoor wildlife housing structures, serviced by utilities and small vehicle paths, for rehabilitating racoons, skunks, squirrels and other sick or injured wildlife. FRW Conclusion: Rouge Park serves as a nationally important refuge for wildlife, including many rare and at-risk species. Building a large building and parking lot in a nationally significant wildlife refuge would be a sad example of the habitat fragmentation and displacement which puts wildlife at so much risk near urban areas. Sites near valley and stream corridors, like this one, are particularly important for restoring habitat connectivity and biodiversity. The proposed construction of a 35,000 square foot building with a septic field and municipal water connection (partial servicing), parking for 50 vehicles, and 10 foot fencing around 60,000 m2 of the site, would clearly: 1) Conflict with Greenbelt Plan section 4.2.2 which does not permit the extension of partial servicing for new developments within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System; 2) Contravene the January 26, 2013, Provincial and Federal Agreement to "meet or exceed" Greenbelt Plan policies during the creation, management and administration of the National Rouge Park; 3) - Create a real or perceived conflict of interest, since TRCA is essentially acting like a co-proponent, when it is also has responsibilities as a Regulator and public property manager; 4) - Be premature since the federal Rouge NU Park legislation is being amended to prioritize ecological integrity and the national park management plan has not been finalized; 5) - Have negative implications for wildlife habitat connectivity (i.e. 10 foot fencing) and species at risk within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System, contrary to Greenbelt and Rouge Park policies; 6) - Have possible negative implications for the known aboriginal burial site on the property; 7) - Conflict with Toronto OP s. 4.3 " Natural Areas are to be maintained primarily in a natural state"; 8) - Involve the relocation of an intermittent stream with likely impacts on hydrological features and functions contrary to Greenbelt and Rouge Park policies; 9) - Have a development area of approximately 57% of the developable area, contrary to the Greenbelt Plan's upper limit of 25%, if the area to be enclosed by 10 foot wooden fences and wire pens is included; 10) - Conflict with the "natural state" objectives of Toronto OP and Rouge Park plans due to the proposed obstruction of the landscape with 1000+ metres of 3+metre (10 foot) tall wooden slat fencing. 129 Site Context and Policy Framework: The TRCA purchased the property in 2010 for "Rouge Park purposes". The proposed 35,000 square foot Building is located at 6461 Steeles Ave East just east of the Rouge Valley. The site is surrounded by: the Cedarbrae Golf Course within the Rouge Valley to the west; an agricultural area within Rouge Park and the Greenbelt to the east and southeast; Cedarbrae Woods ESA; an ecological restoration area; and the Rouge Valley to the south; the future Steeles Avenue / Markham bypass intersection to the northwest; privately-owned non-Greenbelt development lands on the north side of Steeles Avenue. The site contains an aboriginal burial site; two intermittent streams; a pond used by snapping, painted and map turtles (SAR); barn swallows (SAR) nesting in the existing barn; and habitat restoration sites done by FRW for the Rouge Park / TRCA. According to the proponent's reports, these features and buffers comprise some 10 hectares of the 27 hectare site. The proponent's report omits a new habitat strip north of Passmore Road. Greenbelt Plan The Ontario Greenbelt Plan designates all of the subject Lot 11, Con 5 as "Protected Countryside" with a Natural Heritage System overlay. Section 4.2.2 of the Greenbelt Plan states: "New or expanded partial servicing, where site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services, is only permitted in the following circumstances: a. Where such servicing is necessary to address failed individual on-site sewage or water services serving existing development; or b. To allow for infilling and intensification within settlement areas served by partial services... ." Section 4.1.2 of the Greenbelt Plan states that: "Proposals for non-agricultural uses must demonstrate that: a) the use is appropriate for location in a rural area; b) the type of water and sewer servicing proposed is appropriate for the type of use; c) there are no negative impacts on key natural features and or key hydrologic features or their functions; d) there are no negative impacts on the biodiversity or connectivity of the Natural Heritage System.” Toronto's Official Plan Land Use Plan Map 22 designates the subject property as “Natural Areas”, and the western part of the property is identified as part of the Natural Heritage System (Map 9). Section 4.3 of the Toronto OP states that Natural Areas are to be maintained primarily in a natural state. OPA Section 3.4 states that development is generally not permitted in the natural heritage system. National Rouge Park Legislation The proposed TWC building site is located within the proposed National Rouge Park. The legislation for the National Park is being updated to state: 6 (1) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, must be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of the Park. Ecological integrity has two key elements: 1) the protection and restoration of native biodiversity and natural processes; and 2) the minimization of unnatural stressors. The construction and operation of the proposed TWC building would be an unnatural stressor which would interfere with the protection and restoration of native biodiversity and natural processes. 130 1 3 1 132 133 David Michael Bastoli 1185 Vanrose Street, Apartment 203 Mississauga, Ontario L5V 1W7 May 16, 2017 Board of Directors Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Re: Toronto Wildlife Centre – Meeting #4/17 – Agenda Item 7.3 Dear Board Members, I am writing in support of the recommendation that TRCA re-confirm its backing of the Toronto Wildlife Centre (TWC), specifically their proposal to build a wildlife rescue and education centre in the Rouge National Urban Park, as well as the related recommendations. As an individual who values the abundance of wildlife in the Toronto region, I am confident that this new facility will represent a major step forward in providing care and rehabilitation to injured animals and educating the public on wildlife issues. The growing presence of wildlife in urban environments is a pressing issue for cities in Canada and worldwide. This past Saturday we woke up to the news that a wild black bear had entered a Scarborough neighbourhood overnight, and was subsequently killed by police, for no reason other than the lack of resources to immobilize and relocate. Sadly this type of ‘resolution’ to real or perceived wildlife threats is not limited to unusual species like bears. Last summer, Toronto police shot and injured an already sick coyote. Results like these are inhumane and disturbing. More education is clearly needed at all levels. The proposed centre could aid greatly in this. Our area is privileged to have TWC with its excellent track record. With proper funding, their proposed new centre would make the Toronto area a world leader on these issues. I encourage you to please help make it happen. Sincerely, David Michael Bastoli via e-mail to the attention of Kathy Stranks, kstranks@trca.on.ca Correspondence 6.2 134 Correspondence 6.3 Canada’s most innovative green building projects join CaGBC’s Zero Carbon Building Pilot Program This morning, CaGBC announced that 16 of Canada’s most innovative projects have been chosen to participate in a two-year pilot of CaGBC’s Zero Carbon Building Standard. The Standard, which assesses the carbon performance of commercial, institutional, and multi-family buildings in Canada, will be formally released on May 29 in Vancouver. Spanning the length of the country from Dartmouth to Kelowna, the diversity of these 16 pilot projects demonstrates the broad applicability of the program with sizes ranging from 20,000 to 1.3 million sq.ft, representing both new and existing buildings. Project types include institutional buildings, offices, multi-unit residential, warehouses, and a fire hall. This elite group of projects were chosen for their ambitious environmental leadership, and potential to aggressively raise the bar for carbon emissions reduction in Canada. The experience from these projects will help refine the Standard for full market deployment. The CaGBC Zero Carbon Building Pilot Program projects are listed below, with the exception of those who wish to remain confidential at this time. To view project profiles, renderings and other details on the Pilot Projects, visit cagbc.org/zerocarbonpilots. Project Name Owner Location Zero Emissions Fire Hall City of Vancouver Vancouver, BC Wilkinson Avenue Net-Zero Heating Energy Warehouse East Port Properties Dartmouth, NS EcoLock, Carbon Capture Mini Storage EcoLock Kelowna, BC Joyce Centre for Partnership & Innovation Mohawk College Hamilton, ON Okanagan College Health Sciences Centre (HSC) Okanagan College Kelowna, BC 30 Bay Street Oxford Properties Group Toronto, ON 1133 Melville Oxford Properties Group Vancouver, BC 135 Confidential Mixed-Use Development Perkins+Will Vancouver, BC Arthur Meighen Building, 22-55 St. Claire Avenue East Public Service and Procurement Canada Toronto, ON New Curé-Paquin Elementary School Seigneurie-des-Mille-Îles School Board Saint- Eustache, QC NiMa Trails – Residential, Commercial Net Zero Building TerraView Homes & Newton Group Guelph, ON evolv1 The Cora Group Waterloo, ON Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) New Headquarters Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Toronto, ON MacKimmie Complex Redevelopment University of Calgary Calgary, AB Through the Pilot Program, participants will gain access to a group of leading professionals for advice and guidance. CaGBC will also be convening quarterly in-depth technical sessions with the pilots in order to provide networking and learning opportunities for them, as well as a platform in which to discuss the challenges and possible solutions involved in reaching net zero carbon. The industry is encouraged to attend the Net Zero Carbon Buildings Summit on May 30 in Vancouver, which will discuss the new Standard in detail, along with a full stream of education content focusing on Zero Carbon Buildings at Building Lasting Change 2017, which begins the following day, May 31. For ongoing updates about the CaGBC Zero Carbon Building Initiative and Standard as it becomes available, visit cagbc.org/zerocarbon. 136 Correspondence 6.4 Ann Rohmer 18/05/2017 08:18 AM To kstranks@trca.on.ca, cc Subject Toronto Wildlife Centre in my humble opinion,is an essential service! Hi Kathy. I was the proud host of Animal House Calls on CP24+Animal Planet for more than a decade and through that period of time we all(audience and the AHC team)learned what TWC does in terms of saving,protecting,enriching and enhancing the lives of our beloved wildlife here in the GTA. It is an unique organization that works tirelessly to support wild animals in need but also to educate humans who require help understanding how to live alongside one of nature's greatest gifts...wildlife. TWC's"reach"has,out of necessity,expanded in recent years to the entire GTA as we see our borders melt away with major housing and highway development and a more unified attitude across the Greater Toronto Area. Wild animals made this region their home long before we humans began putting down roots! These often vulnerable creatures rely on the knowledge,compassion,professionalism and expertise of the entire TWC team. The shelter and the medical equipment housed within,also crucial when it comes to saving lives,rescue+release and education. I can't speak highly enough of Nathalie Karvonen and the entire Toronto Wildlife Centre team..both staff and volunteers. Wildlife Warriors,Animal Angels,Creature Caregivers..call them what you want.Their work is essential to the thousands of wildlife who inhabit our beautiful green spaces and sometimes our own backyards here in the GTA. Respectfully and enthusiastically, Ann Rohmer CP24 Toronto 137 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A77/17 - HIGHLAND CREEK AT UTSC (AREA C) BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT, CITY OF TORONTO Award of Contract #10003762. Award of Contract #10003762 for the supply of all labour, equipment, and materials necessary for the construction of a vegetated rock buttress and removal of existing dilapidated sheet pile structures for the Highland Creek at UTSC (Area C) Bank Stabilization Project, in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: David Barrow THAT Contract #10003762 for the supply of all labour, equipment, and materials necessary for the construction of a vegetated rock buttress and removal of existing dilapidated sheet piling for the Highland Creek at UTSC (Area C) Bank Stabilization Project, in the City of Toronto be awarded to McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. at a total cost of $298,830.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA has been undertaking erosion control works along Highland Creek between Morningside Avenue and Old Kingston Road since the late 1980s. In 2013-2014, TRCA completed bank restoration works along the east bank of Highland Creek approximately 120 metres downstream of the Morningside Avenue Bridge to protect a trail (Area A). In December 2015, TRCA completed a trail realignment project along another section of trail that was eroding known as Area B to address public safety concerns. Due to sensitive terrestrial habitat, TRCA installed a raised trail supported on helical piles to minimize disturbance in this area. TRCA is currently undertaking a design to stabilize the bank along Area B in order mitigate long term erosion concerns. The area being addressed under Contract#10003762, known as Area C was identified to TRCA during the planning stages of this project back in 2014 however, planning and design was deferred to subsequent funding years while TRCA helped the City of Toronto tackle higher priority erosion sites elsewhere in the Highland Creek Watershed. A map has been appended to this report showing the location of Areas A, B and C in relation to one another. 138 Within Area C, a sheet pile weir and retaining wall that initially prevented erosion at a sharp meander were installed sometime between 1967 and 1977. Aerial imagery shows that this structure was outflanked between December 2005 and April 2007 compromising the structural integrity of the weir and retaining walls. The structure is now accelerating erosion locally by directing flows towards the unprotected south bank. Continued erosion will threaten an existing asphalt pedestrian path that is approximately 6 metres from the eroding bank. The proposed bank stabilization works will tie into an existing concrete retaining wall immediately downstream of the scour to provide long-term protection through this area. The scope of work includes removal of dilapidated sheet pile infrastructure, regrading of the existing bank, and construction of a densely planted vegetated rock buttress. Site restoration works will include native tree plantings, asphalt repaving, and the installation of a cedar post & paddle fence to ensure public safety. Implementation for this contract is tentatively scheduled to commence July 3, 2017 and the substantial completion date is August 31, 2017. RATIONALE A Request for Pre-Qualification (RFPQ) for Contract #10003762 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com) on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 with 28 contractors being registered as full document takers. TRCA received pre-qualification packages from 16 contractors by the RFPQ closing date of Friday, February 10, 2017. Following TRCA staff’s review of pre-qualification packages and internal and external reference checks, a total of 13 contractors were pre-qualified. The Request for Tender (RFT) documents were then issued to the pre-qualified bidders on Monday, April 10, 2017 and a mandatory site information meeting was held on Tuesday, April 18, 2017. The mandatory site information meeting was attended by the following pre-qualified contractors: Bronte Construction Ltd. Clearwater Structures Inc. CSL Group Ltd. Dynex Construction Inc. Galcon Marine Ltd. Ground Force Environmental Inc. Hawkins Contracting Services Ltd. McPherson-Andrew Contracting Ltd. R&M Construction The Ontario Construction Company Ltd. Trisan Construction The Tender closed on April 25, 2017 at 12:00 PM and the Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders that same day at 12:15 PM with the following results: CONTRACT #10003762 TENDER RESULTS BIDDERS TOTAL CONTRACT (Plus HST) McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. $298,830.00 R&M Construction $329,201.00 Dynex Construction Inc. $343,242.00 Bronte Construction Ltd. $395,744.90 139 BIDDERS TOTAL CONTRACT (Plus HST) Hawkins Contracting Services Ltd. $424,076.30 Ground Force Environmental Inc. $446,710.14 The Ontario Construction Company Ltd. $474,925.00 CSL Group Ltd. $516,566.50 Restoration and Infrastructure Division staff reviewed the bid received from McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. TRCA has worked with McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. on similar projects which resulted in positive feedback and confidence that McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. is capable of undertaking the scope of work. TRCA staff recommends that Contract #10003762 be awarded to McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. for a total cost not to exceed $298,830.00, plus a 20% contract contingency, plus HST as they are the lowest bidder meeting TRCA’s specifications. TRCA staff recommends a 20% contract contingency in the event of soft or wet ground conditions during backfilling operations which may require installation of 50mm clear stone rather than the prescribed backfill material which consists of compacted Granular B (Type 1), and for additional paving that may be required along the access route. Under TRCA’s 10-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2022), this project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #2 “Manage our Regional Water Resources for Current and Future Generations”, as the proposed works will contribute to maximizing the resilience of our water systems in preparation for predicted changes in climate change by locally increasing the channel’s flow capacity while mitigating risks to public safety by stabilizing the bank and providing long term protection for the recreational trail. Additionally, this project aligns with Enabling Strategy #7 “Build Partnerships and New Business Models.” TRCA has completed similar work on behalf of the City of Toronto multiple times allowing us to demonstrate TRCA’s expertise and capability in performing this critical maintenance thereby increasing TRCA’s financial resilience. FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of this project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within Account #186-28. Report prepared by: Chris Scholz, 416-642-7518 Emails: chris.scholz@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647-808-6542 Emails: ashour.rehana@trca.on.ca Date: April 26, 2017 Attachments: 1 140 141 RES.#A78/17 - NEWBOLD-BEATON RAVINE TRAIL PROJECT Design Build Services for the Construction of a 20m Steel Boardwalk. Award of Contract #10004322 for engineering and construction services of a 20 metre steel boardwalk at Newbold-Beaton Ravine Trail, in the City of Toronto Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT Contract #10004322 for engineering and construction services of a 20 metre steel boardwalk at Newbold-Beaton Ravine Trail, in the City of Toronto be awarded to McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. at a total cost not to exceed $223,829.00 , plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA is working on behalf of City of Toronto. These works are expected to increase public safety and provide improved public access along the trail from Newbold to Beaton Avenues. In accordance with Parks, Forestry and Recreation (PF&R) Policies and Service Plans, we have coordinated with various Division, Agencies and Utilities as project stakeholders. Urban Forestry Ravine and Natural Features Protection have been included in the process since project initiation and have provided feedback and comments on the conceptual and detailed drawings. As a result, this PF&R project has been designed to: • minimize the number of trees impacted; • minimize the number of trees to be removed; • provide full restoration of all areas of disturbance (trees, shrubs & seeding); and • provide compensation plantings for tree removals and injuries. The final design solution is consistent with City of Toronto Official Plan and Strategic Plan policies, Regulations and Bylaws; including the Ravine and Natural Features Bylaw (RNFP). As a part of the final design and expected construction implementation, it has been determined that it will be necessary to remove 12 trees greater than 10 cm, 44 trees less than 10cm, and injure an additional 54 trees. Note that only 1 of the larger trees to be removed is a native species, and all are of low protection priority. 142 Based on RNFP guidelines and correspondence with RNFP staff, a 3:1 re-planting ratio is to be provided for those trees greater 10 cm to be removed, a 1:1 ratio for trees less than 10 cm to be removed, and a 1:1 ratio for tree injuries. In addition, all areas of disturbance are to be restored with native seeding, plus additional tree and shrub planting wherever appropriate. RATIONALE Design-Build Request for Proposals (RFP) for general contractors for Contract #10004322 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/) on Monday, March 27th, 2017. The submissions were evaluated on a weighted scoring system consisting of 70% technical criteria and the remaining 30% on the fee proposal. The evaluation criteria included the following: Experience, qualifications, and availability of Consultant and its employees proposed for the Services; Consultant’s understanding of the Services, Project and Scope of Work; Experience with similar projects; Proposed approach and methodology for the coordination of services including an assessment of any anticipated difficulties and the proposed approach to overcome them; and Reasonableness of cost. Request for Proposal documents were received by the following eight general contractors: Hobden Construction; TPI International; CSL Group; Green Space Landscaping; Algonquin Bridge; TBG Environmental; Landtar Construction; and McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. Proposals closed on April 24, 2017 at 12:00pm and were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee on April 24, 2017 at 1:00pm. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Chris Ulcar, Michelle Guy and James Dickie) reviewed the submitted proposals and evaluated them based on the aforementioned criteria. The results of the evaluation are as follows: BIDDERS Technical 70% Financial 30% TOTAL TENDER (Plus HST) Overall Ranking McPherson-Andrews Contracting 1 1 $223,819.00 1 CSL Group 3 2 $224,950.00 2 Landtar Construction 2 3 $281,460.00 3 TBG Environmental 4 4 $424,375.65 4 Based on the evaluation of the received proposals, it was determined that the combined technical and fee proposal valued at $223,819.00, submitted by McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. offered the best service for value among the general contractors whose technical capacity matched the project needs. 143 Therefore staff recommends that McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. be awarded Contract #10004322 at a total amount not to exceed $223,819.00, to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 10% contingency, plus HST; it being the highest ranked proposal. FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within Account #117-62 Report prepared by: Michelle Guy, extension 5905 Emails: mguy@trca.on.ca For Information contact: James Dickie, extension 5906 Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca Date: May 5, 2017 ______________________________ 144 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES.#A79/17 Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss item 7.3 – Toronto Wildlife Centre to discuss on-going property negotiations in relation to the proposed lease. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES.#A80/17 Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Anthony Perruzza THAT the committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED RES.#A81/17 - TORONTO WILDLIFE CENTRE Development of wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre serving the Greater Toronto Area, CFN 32060. Receipt of request from the City of Toronto to assist in the development of a wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre serving the Greater Toronto Area with the Toronto Wildlife Centre. Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority re-confirm its support of the proposal by Toronto Wildlife Centre (TWC) for a wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre (Centre) for the Greater Toronto Area in the Rouge National Urban Park; THAT staff approach the City of Toronto and the Regions of Durham, Peel and York to explore new funding support for the construction of the Centre based upon the design developed by Stanford Downey Architects Inc.; THAT staff work with the TWC to explore funding for the Centre from the federal and provincial governments, and other potential partners; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Executive Committee at a future date on funding support for the Centre. AMENDMENT RES.#A82/17 Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the last paragraph of the main motion be amended to read as follows: 145 AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Executive Committee at the September meeting on funding support for the Centre, a draft fundraising plan, the governance model, lease and ownership of land arrangements, prior to signing the lease. RECORDED VOTE Kevin Ashe Yea Maria Augimeri Nay Jack Ballinger Yea David Barrow Yea Ron Chopowick Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Michael Ford Yea Jack Heath Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Giorgio Mammoliti Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Linda Pabst Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority re-confirm its support of the proposal by Toronto Wildlife Centre (TWC) for a wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre (Centre) for the Greater Toronto Area in the Rouge National Urban Park; THAT staff approach the City of Toronto and the Regions of Durham, Peel and York to explore new funding support for the construction of the Centre based upon the design developed by Stanford Downey Architects Inc.; THAT staff work with the TWC to explore funding for the Centre from the federal and provincial governments, and other potential partners; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Executive Committee at the September meeting on funding support for the Centre, a draft fundraising plan, the governance model, lease and ownership of land arrangements, prior to signing the lease. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #8/12, held on October 26, 2012, Resolution #A206/12 was approved as follows: THAT the proposal by Toronto Wildlife Centre for a 20,000 square foot wildlife hospital and rehabilitation/training/public education centre be supported; 146 THAT a 20 year $1 per year lease for approximately 20 acres of land on the 6461 and/or 6545 Steeles Avenue East, Toronto, be approved, subject to submission of a site plan and business plan to the satisfaction of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s Chief Administrative Officer and solicitors; THAT TRCA create a steering committee to address future wildlife rehabilitation needs in the Greater Toronto Area; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Executive Committee at a future date. At City of Toronto Council Meeting No. 25, held on February 15, 2017, Item EX22.2 - 2017 Capital and Operating Budgets (All Wards), was approved in part, as follows: 97. City Council request the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in cooperation with its member municipalities, the Toronto Wildlife Centre, the Provincial and Federal Governments and other potential partners, to develop a project under the Conservation Authorities Act to establish a Toronto Region Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, and to include in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authorities' 2018 Budget submission, the necessary funds to continue work on the project. The Board of Directors of Toronto Wildlife Centre at its meeting held on April 17, 2017, adopted the following resolution: The Board of Directors of Toronto Wildlife Centre agrees in principle to enter into a further partnership agreement with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), as per the Feb. 15, 2017 City of Toronto Motion. It is our understanding that the proposed agreement is for TRCA, in cooperation with its member municipalities, to include in its 2018 budget submission $15M in capital funding towards establishing a Toronto Region Wildlife Rescue, Rehabilitation and Education Centre; a project under the Conservation Authorities Act. It is our understanding that these funds are to be matching funds, and that Toronto Wildlife Centre, a partner in this project, is expected in turn to raise a minimum of $10M cash and $5M in-kind (donated goods and services) as its contribution; the $10M to form an endowment fund for the operating costs of the new facility. It is our understanding that other partners may include the Provincial and Federal Governments and other potential partners. It is also our understanding that TWC will be able to maintain naming and recognition opportunities at the new facility in order to help secure community support for this project. Toronto Wildlife Centre (TWC) is a registered charity founded in 1992 by a small group of volunteers, who were concerned that there was no help for sick, injured or orphaned wildlife in the Toronto area. Led by TWC Executive Director Nathalie Karvonen, the group spent their first year running a basic wildlife hotline from a rented phone, and gathering resources to open a wildlife centre where wild animals could be admitted for rehabilitation. On March 28, 1993, the TWC opened its doors for the first time, and they have remained open ever since, 365 days a year. 147 Today, TWC is composed of an extremely diverse and experienced team of wildlife veterinarians, wildlife rehabilitators, animal rescue staff, wildlife hotline experts, and approximately 500 volunteers working in all areas of the centre, from wildlife care to carpentry to administration. It is the only veterinary hospital and rehabilitation facility for sick, injured and orphaned wild animals in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and the busiest wildlife centre in Canada. Admitting approximately 5,000 patients each year representing over 270 unique species (including many species at risk) and helping tens of thousands more via an internationally admired wildlife emergency hotline and a myriad of public education initiatives, TWC is a leader in the field of wildlife rehabilitation. TWC’s main centre of operations is currently a 14,000 square foot facility located in Parc Downsview Park in Toronto. This facility is home to TWC’s Wildlife Hotline office, a veterinary hospital, a variety of indoor wildlife rehabilitation enclosures, fundraising offices, oiled wildlife washing facilities, and outdoor caging. The lease currently expires in January, 2018. These premises are in poor condition and scheduled for demolition at the end of the lease. TWC also currently maintains a small outdoor rehabilitation and acclimatization facility in the Rouge National Urban Park. The original proposal from TWC in 2012 was for the construction of a new 20,000 square foot facility. Since that time, Stanford Downey Architects Inc. has undertaken a review of TWC’s operation during the design phase for the new facility and has determined, to meet the long term requirements of TWC, the new facility would include the following components: a proposed new two storey building and rescue workshop of approximate 4,853 square meters (52,235 square feet); renovation of the existing barn of approximate 517 square meters (5,565 square feet); renovation of the existing residential house of approximately 518 square meters (5,571 square feet); construction of a new 2 storey bulk storage shed of approximate152 square meters (1,633 square feet); and construction of new outdoor animal enclosures. Since approval of the resolution in 2012, TRCA staff has been assisting TWC in obtaining the necessary approvals to establish its new permanent location at 6461 Steeles Avenue East, within the Rouge National Urban Park. The main outstanding issue related to the approvals is the water supply to the facility. The existing residential house is serviced by a well, however, it doesn’t appear to have the capacity to service the entire new facility. The closest City of Toronto watermain is located approximately 1 kilometre to the west. Extending the watermain to the site will be a significant cost and there are issues around the maintenance and operation of the system. Staff is currently working with City of Toronto and TWC to develop potential shorter term solutions for the water supply issue such as well(s) and reservoir(s) and longer term solution such as connection to municipal water either the City of Toronto or Regional Municipality of York. TRCA lands located at 6461 Steels Avenue, Toronto, consists of 67.91 acres of land, improved with a residential dwelling and outbuildings were acquired from Runnymede Development Corporation Limited in 2010. This parcel of land is included in the “Memorandum of Agreement Respecting the Assembly of Land for the Proposed Rouge National Urban Park” and scheduled to be transferred to Parks Canada. TWC has been using the residential dwelling for an intern residence since 2015. RATIONALE Naturalization efforts by TRCA and our partners have enhanced the quality and quantity of open space and valley lands in proximity to development, which has re-introduced a number of species to these urban and urbanizing areas. With this increase in development in proximity to open 148 space, there has been a corresponding increase in conflicts between humans and wildlife. Supporting and assisting TWC with the development of a wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre will allow for the mitigation of conflicts between humans and wildlife. Since, TWC is a charitable organization and their operations are currently only supported by donations and in-kind gifts which will not be sufficient to support the capital requirement needed to move forward with the development of this permanent facility necessary to service the GTA, there is a need for Government funding support to assist TWC with their new facility. FINANCIAL DETAILS Based on the current design as proposed by TWC, the costs including base building, design, and contingency would be in the $20 million range. Not included in this estimate are consultants’ fees; project and construction management; furniture and equipment; permits, development charges, approvals and legal fees; disbursements; testing and inspections; financing; moving expenses and HST. Staff also recommend creating a maintenance reserve/endowment fund in the $10 million range to ensure that there is available budget to undertake a proactive operation, maintenance and replacement schedule based on the Project life cycle requirements. It is proposed that staff enter into discussions with City of Toronto and the Regions of Durham, Peel and York (Participating Municipalities) staff related to including a request for special funding in their respective capital budgets for construction of a wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre. Staff is recommending the Participating Municipalities contributions be based on the annual Modified Current Value Assessment (CVA) formula; which is subject to annual updating. Staff is also recommending this be an equal partnership between TWC and TRCA with TWC matching the Participating Municipalities contributions with donations of money and in kind services. TWC would also like to retain right for naming opportunities for the facility to offer to their donors. Staff will also explore opportunities for other grant funding contributions and federal and provincial infrastructure funding programs. If successful, these funds would be used to offset the participating municipal contributions. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Approach City of Toronto and the Regions of Durham, Peel and York for special funding support for the construction of a new wildlife facility in the Rouge National Urban Park. Work with TWC and the City of Toronto to resolve the water supply issue. Continue discussions with TWC and Parks Canada regarding the arrangement for utilization of the site for a wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre. Explore other funding opportunities. Work with TWC to finalize design and construction costs of the facility. Determine whether TRCA or TWC will manage the construction of the facility. Work with TWC to determine who will be responsible for managing the maintenance reserve/endowment fund and how it will be managed. Work with TWC to develop a plan for naming opportunities for the facility. Report prepared by: Nadia Wells, extension 5859; Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: nwells@trca.on.ca, mfenning@trca.on.ca Date: May 9, 2017 Attachments: 2 149 STEELES A V E E 9 T H L I N E 0 200 400 Meters F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its lic ens ors . [2017] May Not be Reproduc ed without Permis s ion. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend Subjec t Property Waterc ours es ! ! ! ! ! !Floodline Regulation Limit TRCA Property Parc el As s es s ment Subject Property# Rou g e R iv e r ^SITE Attachment 1 150 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. N e w t w o s t o r e y b u i l d i n g 2. N e w r e s c u e w o r k s h o p 3. N e w t w o s t o r e y b u l k s t o r a g e s h e d 4. E x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l h o u s e 5. E x i s t i n g b a r n A t t a c h m e n t 2 1 5 1 RES.#A83/17 - PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Request for Proposal #10004404. Award of contract for professional project management services to ensure overall delivery of the project to construct Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s new administrative office building located at 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto, within the confirmed project budget and schedule. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Contract #10004404 for Project Management Services in support of the Project for the Construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be awarded to Jones Lang LaSalle for a total cost not to exceed $848,630.00, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proponent resulting from evaluation criteria set out in the Request for Proposal (RFP); THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the above-mentioned proponent, staff be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with the next highest ranked proponent; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/16, held on June 24, 2016, Resolution #A85/16 approved the construction of an administrative office building at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto and directed staff to take the necessary action to complete the Project, including the submission of formal requests for approval to the participating municipalities and the Province of Ontario. On February 24, 2017, staff reported at Authority Meeting #1/17 that all six of TRCA’s participating municipalities, by way of their respective Councils, had approved the Project and the allocation of $60,000,000 in new and existing capital funding toward the Project. On March 27, 2017 staff submitted a formal request to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry for approval of the Project and a rate of interest. Minister’s approval pursuant to the requirements of Section 3(5) and 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act is required in order to satisfy the lending conditions of a financial institution for funds borrowed for the Project and to allocate approximately $10 million to the Project from existing and future land sale disposition proceeds. Staff anticipates a response from the Province of Ontario within the next two months. Staff is currently procuring the services of a comprehensive team to provide final design and project management support through site plan, tendering and construction phases of the Project, based on the schematic design completed by DTAH Architects Limited in 2016. 152 RATIONALE TRCA advertised a Request for Proposal for Project Management Services in support of the Project on April 18, 2017. On May 12, 2017, the Procurement Opening Committee opened five complete proposals and one incomplete submission as follows: Consultant Fees (plus HST) p2i strategies ltd. $814,410.00 Jones Lang LaSalle $848,630.00 Turner & Townsend $1,050,000.00 METTKO $1,112,763.60 AECOM $2,081,726.00 Future Insulation Systems Disqualified The Selection Committee consisting of TRCA staff (Aaron D’Souza, Mike Fenning and Laura Stephenson) reviewed the proposals based on a weighted scoring system consisting of 80% based on the technical review of the proposal and the remaining 20% on the fee proposal. The criteria used to evaluate the submissions and to select the recommended consultant included the following: Experience, qualifications, and availability of the consultant and its employees proposed for the services; Consultant’s understanding of the services, Project and scope of work; Proposed approach and methodology for the services including an assessment of any anticipated difficulties and the proposed approach to overcome them; Proposed schedule, benchmarks, timelines and work plan, and ability to comply with proposed schedule; Relevant Project examples; and Cost of services. The results of the evaluation of received proposals are as follows: Consultant Ranking Jones Lang LaSalle 1 p2i strategies ltd. 2 METTKO 3 Turner & Townsend 4 AECOM 5 Based on the evaluation results and the results of TRCA reference checks, it was determined that the technical proposal and fee proposal submitted by Jones Lang LaSalle was the highest rank proposal meeting the needs of TRCA’s Project and offering the best value for services. FINANCIAL DETAILS The final design and site plan approval process will be undertaken between October 2017 and into early 2019, followed by construction and commissioning phases that will conclude in 2021. The cost of the contract is $848,630, plus 20% contingency, plus HST. Funds are available in the Capital Budget for the contract period of 2017 – 2021, in account 006-50. 153 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE On May 11, 2017 a Request for Statement of Qualifications for Architectural, Landscape Architecture and Professional Engineering Services was issued to invite firms to pre-qualify to provide these services to TRCA. Following this process TRCA will evaluate the consultant submissions and invite the top five by service area to participate in the second phase of the bid competition. During the Request for Proposal phase, the pre-qualified consultants will be invited to prepare and submit a technical proposal. The results of this process are expected to be reported to the Authority on September 22, 2017. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: lstephenson@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: lstephenson@trca.on.ca Date: May 17, 2017 ______________________________ 154 RES.#A84/17 - BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE VISITOR CENTRE RETROFIT PROJECT Professional Consulting Services Associated with the Design, Tender and Construction of a Replacement Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning System. Award of a preferred source contract for professional consulting services associated with the design, tender and construction of a replacement HVAC system at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre, Toronto. Moved by: Anthony Perruzza Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT a preferred source contract for professional consulting services associated with the design, tender and construction of a replacement heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (HVAC) at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre be awarded to Integral Group for a total cost not to exceed $175,000, plus HST; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 25% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #1/17, held on February 24, 2017, Resolution #A16/17 was approved as follows: WHEREAS in December 2016, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) received funding approval from FedDev Ontario, Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program (CIP 150) for the following projects: Improvement of the Beach Centre Septic System at Albion Hills Conservation Area; Kortright Visitors' Centre Improvements; BCPV Building Envelope, Lighting, and HVAC Improvements; Expansion of the Tommy Thompson Park Wetland Trail; AND WHEREAS projects approved for funding must be duly authorized or endorsed by a resolution of the Authority; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the aforementioned projects approved for funding by FedDev Ontario be approved in principle; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report to the Authority for additional approvals as required. 155 The Black Creek Pioneer Village Strategic Plan identified the need to address the current maintenance backlog such as the Visitors’ Centre HVAC. Both the current HVAC and lighting system is inefficient and past its functional life. Existing mechanical systems are failing and need of immediate repair and replacement. Poor lighting and temperature control also hinders the use of the facility and parts of the building shell are in need of repair, which contributes to high energy costs. TRCA staff retained the services of Integral Group through a competitive process in November 2016 to complete an audit and analysis of the available replacement options. The Visitor Centre was modeled to determine the relative impacts of various upgrades to the mechanical system, envelope and lighting in order to significantly reduce energy use and operating costs. Working with Integral Group, TRCA staff has prepared a conceptual plan to replace the existing failing heat pumps, cooling tower and boiler system with a centralized high efficiency heat pump system. This plan also includes renovation of the ventilation system to provide air handlers and a building automation system to provide greater control over the HVAC system. RATIONALE Staff anticipates that detailed design, permits and approvals of the replacement HVAC system will take three months. Construction must commence this fall in order to meet the deadline for substantial completion of the project by the March 31, 2018 deadline associated with the FedDev Ontario, Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program funds. Therefore, based on the work to date with Integral Group, their specialized knowledge, expertise and familiarity with the existing building, associated mechanical and electrical systems, and their ability to expedite the detailed design of the HVAC system, staff recommend award of a preferred source contract per Section 9.3.3 of TRCA’s Purchasing Policy as follows: The required goods and services are to be supplied by a vendor or supplier having specialized knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be reasonably provided by any other supplier. FINANCIAL DETAILS The upset limit for professional consulting services associated with the design, tender and construction of a replacement HVAC system at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre be awarded to Integral Group for a total cost not to exceed $175,000, plus contingency and HST. Funds required to complete this work and the planned construction, currently estimated at $2,200,000, are available from the CIP 150/ FedDev Ontario Funding Ask ($400,000), and matched by TRCA reserves. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following completion of the detailed design and permitting phase, staff will issue the tender for construction in August. The results of the tender process are expected to be reported to the Authority on September 22, 2017. Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: lstephenson@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: lstephenson@trca.on.ca Date: May 18, 2017 ______________________________ 156 RES.#A85/17 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND Adjacent to 40 Grovetree Road, City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed, CFN 56447. Recommendation that the subject TRCA-owned property, located to the rear of 40 Grovetree Road, in the City of Toronto, Humber River watershed, be retained in TRCA ownership for conservation purposes. (Executive Res.#B32/17) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned property located to the rear of 40 Grovetree Road, in the City of Toronto, be retained in TRCA ownership for conservation purposes. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A86/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed 2097500 Ontario Limited, CFN 57618. Acquisition of property located south of Teston Road and west of Weston Road, municipally known as 4077 Teston Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B33/17) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT 1.562 hectares (3.859 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Teston Road and west of Weston Road, said land being Part of Lot 25, Concession 7, designated as Blocks 89, 90 and 94 on Draft Plan 65M- prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Ltd. on September 26, 2016, under Job No. 14-830-00, municipally known as 4077 Teston Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from 2097500 Ontario Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and execution of documents. CARRIED 157 RES.#A87/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Mosaik Pinewest Inc., CFN 57615. Acquisition of property located south of Teston Road and east of Pine Valley Drive, municipally known as 10355 Pine Valley Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B34/17) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT 22.0241 hectares (54.42 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Teston Road and east of Pine Valley Drive, said land being Part of Lot 23, Concession 6, designated as Blocks 52 and 53 on Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Guido Papa Surveying on October 6, 2016, under Job No. 16-18-535-00, municipally known as 10355 Pine Valley Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Mosaik Pinewest Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A88/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Prima Vista Estates Inc. and 840999 Ontario Limited, CFN 57617. Acquisition of property located south of Teston Road and east of Pine Valley Drive, municipally known as 10601 Pine Valley Drive and 4333 Teston Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B35/17) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos 158 THAT 32.876 hectares (81.238 acres), more or less, of vacant land, said land being Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 6, designated as Blocks 471, 472, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483 and Block 484 on Draft Plan 19T-03V05 prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc. on January 10, 2014, under Job No. P-2172, located south of Teston Road and east of Pine Valley Drive, municipally known as 10601 Pine Valley Drive and 4333 Teston Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Prima Vista Estates Inc. and 840999 Ontario Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and executing documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A89/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Roybridge Holdings Limited, 1387700 Ontario Limited and Lindvest Properties Limited, CFN 57616. Acquisition of property located south of Teston Road and west of Pine Valley Drive, municipally known as 10460 to 10640 Pine Valley Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B36/17) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT 9.2 hectares (22.7 acres), more or less, of vacant land, said land being Part of Lot 24, Concession 7, designated as Blocks 393 and 398 on Draft Plan 19T-03V25 prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc. on May 4, 2015 under Job No. P-2174, located south of Teston Road and west of Pine Valley Drive, municipally known as 10460 to 10640 Pine Valley Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Roybridge Holdings Limited, 1387700 Ontario Limited and Lindvest Properties Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; 159 THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A90/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Squire Ridge Investments Limited, CFN 57650. Acquisition of property located south of Langstaff Road and east of Huntington Road, municipally known as 6545 Langstaff Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B37/17) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT 5.52 hectares (13.64 acres), more or less, of vacant land, said land being Part of Lot 10, Concession 9, designated as Blocks 5 and 6 on Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Ltd. on September 6, 2016 under Job No. 04-740-00B, located on the south of Langstaff Road and east of Huntington Road, municipally known as 6545 Langstaff Road, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Squire Ridge Investments Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and executing documents. CARRIED ______________________________ 160 RES.#A91/17 - THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Request for a Permanent Easement Required for Monitoring Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River Watershed, CFN 23159. Receipt of a request from The Regional Municipality of Peel for a permanent easement required for monitoring of the Albion Landfill Site on Humber Station Road, north of Castlederg Sideroad south of Old Church Road, in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B38/17) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from The Regional Municipality of Peel to provide a permanent easement for monitoring of the Albion Landfill Site, located on Humber Station Road, north of Castlederg Sideroad and south of Old Church Road, in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with The Regional Municipality of Peel in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 40.72 hectares (100.62 acres), more or less, said property being described as Part of Lot 18, Concession 4 and Parts of Lot 18 and 19, Concession 5, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, be granted in favour of The Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs to be paid by The Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT The Regional Municipality of Peel is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigation measure being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of The Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT said conveyance be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ 161 RES.#A92/17 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for a Permanent Easement Required for Replacement of an Existing Storm Sewer City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed, CFN 57739. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for the replacement of an existing storm sewer and outfall, located east of Weston Road and south of Sheppard Avenue West, in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B39/17) Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for the replacement of an existing storm sewer and outfall, located west of Weston Road and south of Sheppard Avenue West, in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.59 hectares (1.45 acres), more or less, said land being designated as Part 1, as shown on a plan prepared by the City of Toronto Engineering and Construction Services Department, Engineering Services Section, Land and Property Surveys, Sketch No. PS-2016-056, dated April 20, 2016, City of Toronto, be granted in favour of the City of Toronto; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs are to be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the City of Toronto; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of the City of Toronto; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by the City of Toronto prior to commencement of construction; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; 162 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A93/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Section II item 10.2.1 – Canada Green Building Council and its Greater Toronto Chapter, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/17, held on May 5, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A94/17 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended item 10.3, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/17, held on May 5, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:19 a.m., on Friday, May 19, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer 163 Authority Meeting #5/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, June 23, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ronald Chopowick Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Jennifer Drake Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Vincent Crisanti Member Michael Di Biase Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Jim Tovey Member RES.#A95/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Minutes of Meeting #4/17, held on May 19, 2017, be approved. CARRIED __________________________________ 164 PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Recognition of Manulife for their contributions to Paddle the Don. 5.2 A presentation by Julia Langer, Chief Executive Officer, The Atomspheric Fund, in regard to 7.1 - The Atmospheric Fund. 5.3 A presentation by Sameer Dhalla, Associate Director, Engineering Services, TRCA, in regard to item 10.2.1 - Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Guideline Document. 5.4 A presentation by Laurie Nelson, Associate Director, Planning and Development, TRCA, in regard to item 7.16 - Conservation Authorities Act Proposed Amendment. RES.#A96/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti THAT above-noted presentations 5.1 and 5.2 be received. CARRIED RES.#A97/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Matt Mahoney THAT above-noted presentation 5.3 be received. CARRIED RES.#A98/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis THAT above-noted presentation 5.4 be received. CARRIED __________________________________ 165 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A99/17 - APPOINTMENT TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY City of Toronto. The Secretary-Treasurer advises that one new appointee to TRCA, representing the City of Toronto, has been duly appointed and is entitled to sit as a member of this Authority until the 2018 annual meeting when all appointments for the period of the Annual Authority Meeting for 2018 to the Annual Authority Meeting for 2019 will be confirmed, unless a successor is appointed. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Councillor Paul Ainslie be recognized as a City of Toronto member of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) until November 30, 2018 and until the first meeting of TRCA afterwards, and as such is duly appointed and entitled to sit as a member of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #1/18, scheduled to be held on February 23, 2018, or until his successor is appointed. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Toronto City Council on December 13, 14 and 15, 2016, Council approved the appointment of nine Council appointees to TRCA for a term of office from January 1, 2017 to November 30, 2018 and until the first meeting of the TRCA afterwards. One of these positions became vacant due to the passing of Councillor Ron Moeser, and as a result of this vacancy, at Toronto City Council on May 24, 2017, Council approved appointment of Councillor Paul Ainslie to TRCA until November 30, 2018. Each year at the annual meeting the Secretary-Treasurer advises who is entitled to sit as members of the Authority for the upcoming year. Due to the change in membership, such advisement needs to be provided at the June 23, 2017 meeting, to be effective until Annual Meeting #1/18, scheduled to be held on February 23, 2018, or until his successor is appointed. As a result, the Secretary-Treasurer is advising that Paul Ainslie is duly appointed to sit as a member of the Authority, effective June 23, 2017. For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: June 12, 2017 __________________________________ 166 RES.#A100/17 - THE ATMOSPHERIC FUND New Name and Expanded Geographic Mandate for The Toronto Atmospheric Fund. Update on changes at The Toronto Atmospheric Fund and collaboration with TRCA. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti WHEREAS The Toronto Atmospheric Fund has changed its name to The Atmospheric Fund (TAF) to reflect receipt of a new endowment funding from the Province of Ontario to expand its work to communities across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area; AND WHEREAS TAF’s new regional mandate to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) is consistent with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Building The Living City, 10 Year Strategic Plan; AND WHEREAS TAF is undertaking a series of studies to better understand the GHG reduction opportunities, key stakeholders and how best to measure and track GHG reductions over time in the GTHA and develop a strategy and program for expanding their work to communities across the GTHA; AND WHEREAS TRCA has worked in partnership with The Toronto Atmospheric Fund for many years on climate related projects within the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS TRCA has significant relationships and experience working with local and regional municipalities, non-governmental organizations and businesses in the GTA and is delivering programs such as Community Transformation, Partners in Project Green, Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plans and Ontario Climate Consortium in partnership with these organizations; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to provide input to TAF’s current studies and efforts to develop a strategy and program for GHG emission reductions for the GTHA; THAT staff continue to work with TAF in supporting the development of a regional program aligned with municipal needs and objectives; THAT staff work with TAF to align complementary programs such as The Living City Report Card, Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plans (SNAP), Partners in Project Green (PPG), The Living City Campus and the Ontario Climate Consortium, to assist TAF with delivering their new regional mandate; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the results of the collaboration, including governance, once TAF has completed its regional strategy and program. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto Atmospheric Fund was established by the City of Toronto in 1991 in recognition of the critically important role played by cities in achieving carbon reduction and cleaner air in Ontario. TAF was established as a non-profit corporation with a one-time financial endowment of $23 million from the City of Toronto. 167 Over the 25 years since its creation TAF has become one of Canada’s preeminent thought and action leaders in confronting and addressing climate change, and a leading-edge investor and contributor to innovative solutions that have helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions city-wide by 24% below 1990 levels. With approximately 30% of Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions originating in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, much needs to be done in the urban areas of the GTHA if Ontario is to meet its climate targets. To that end the Province of Ontario provided TAF with a strategic endowment of $17 million. The new capital will enable TAF to expand its successful model into the GTHA and help achieve the benefits of a low-carbon economy. In order to inform its development of a regional strategy and program for the GTHA, TAF is undertaking a series of studies to better understand the GHG emission reduction opportunities, key stakeholders and how best to measure and track GHG emissions for the GTHA. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has been actively working with its member municipalities, businesses and the public to undertake environmental management in the GTA for over 60 years. TRCA works closely with all levels of government as well as the public, NGOs and the private sector. Since 2000 TRCA has been developing and delivering programs in support of making the Toronto region more sustainable. Some of the programs TRCA developed and is currently delivering include: The Ontario Climate Consortium that fosters collaboration between universities and municipalities on climate mitigation and adaptation related research and practice; Partners in Project Green which is the largest Eco-Business Zone in North America in partnership with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority local business and governments; Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plans, working with local communities to make sustainable solutions more accessible; The Living City Campus and BRE Innovation Park linking Canadian innovation in the building sector to innovation occurring globally; Climate change is one of the most significant issues facing municipalities. To help our member municipalities, TRCA has made a strong commitment to help municipalities address sustainability in the Greater Toronto Area and help communities deal with climate change through mitigation and adaptation. Collaboration is one of TRCA’s guiding principles and a cornerstone of how communities will need to work in order to successfully address climate change. RATIONALE For the past 15 years TAF has proven to be a credible and effective organization with the work it has done on climate change and air quality mitigation within the boundaries of the City of Toronto. With its expanded geographic mandate, TAF is poised to become an important regional partner in helping TRCA achieve The Living City sustainability objectives, including reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. TAF’s expanded geographic mandate will also allow it to work with all of TRCA’s municipalities, thus providing another resource to help them achieve their climate mitigation goals. In addition, there are likely to be significant synergies between TAF’s regional program and some of TRCA’s programs such as Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plans, Partners in Project Green, Ontario Climate Consortium and The Living City Campus. Collaborating with TAF will help to ensure programs are aligned with municipal objectives and mutually supportive. 168 Collaborating with TAF on its mandate supports a number of TRCA’s Strategic Plan goals, including: greening the Toronto region’s economy; fostering sustainable citizenship; building partnerships and new business models; gathering and share the best urban sustainability knowledge; measuring performance; accelerating innovation; and facilitating a region-wide approach to sustainability. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff time to provide assistance to TAF for its current studies and strategy development is included as part of staffs existing activities thus there are no financial implications at this time. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Meet with TAF to identify how staff can assist them with their current projects and strategy development; Prepare a memorandum of understanding to define and guide the partnership; and Report back to the Authority once TAF’s regional strategy and program has been completed. Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre@trca.on.ca Date: June 6, 2017 __________________________________ 169 RES.#A101/17 - CRITICAL EROSION AND FLOOD WORKS Proposed 2017 Workplan and a Summary of TRCA’s Response to the May 2017 Severe Rainfall and Flooding Event. Submission of TRCA’s proposed 2017 Critical Erosion and Flood Works 2017 workplan, including a summary of TRCA’s response to the May 2017 sustained rain event and high lake levels with recommendations for further action. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Gino Rosati WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff reported on the management of erosion and slope stability hazards related to the July 8, 2013 severe weather event at Authority meetings #6/13 on July 26, 2013, #11/13 on January 31, 2014, #6/14 on July 25, 2014, #10/14 on January 9, 2015, #7/15 on July 24, 2015, #4/16 on May 27, 2016 and #11/16 on January 27, 2017; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff was directed at Authority Meeting #4/16 under Resolution #A71/16 to keep the 2017-2026 works forecast for private properties confidential until further legal direction is obtained regarding the disclosure of information and a staff report with recommendations is brought back to a future Authority Meeting for approval; AND WHEREAS staff was authorized at Authority Meeting #4/16 under Resolution #A71/16 to continue with the implementation of several new and ongoing priority projects as described in the 2016 workplan; AND WHEREAS staff was directed at Authority Meeting #4/16 under Resolution #A71/16 to allocate up to 15% of the funding for 2017 to lower priority sites where proactive and/or minor works may prevent significant future damage to or loss of property; AND WHEREAS high lake levels in the spring of 2017 and sustained rains in early May 2017 resulted in significant new erosion damage in the City of Toronto as outlined in Attachment 1; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be authorized to release the 2017-2026 works forecast for private properties waiting for assistance following the receipt of legal advice regarding the disclosure of information collected through TRCA’s Erosion Management Program; THAT staff be authorized to obtain approval from Toronto City Council as required to reallocate erosion funding between projects in the 2017 capital budget in accordance with updated cost estimates and as a result of new damage arising from the May 2017 weather event as shown in Attachment 2; THAT staff be authorized to commence with the implementation of new projects as outlined in the 2017 workplan described in Attachment 2; THAT staff be directed to continue to pursue additional sources of funding from the Province of Ontario and federal government for erosion control works; 170 AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be provided to Toronto Water in compliance with the 2014 Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND July 8, 2013 Severe Weather Event On July 8, 2013 an intense downpour rolled through the Toronto area, causing wide-spread flooding, surcharges of water infrastructure, and significant damage to the river and valley systems including extensive damage to park trails and pedestrian bridges, numerous debris jams, and an unprecedented number of slope failures on hundreds of private properties that border these natural areas. TRCA staff became the first responders to flood and erosion related damage following this event, inventorying and assessing more than 500 sites over the course of several months. TRCA has been inventorying, assessing and remediating erosion hazards for more than 30 years under various program names and special projects, but the July 8, 2013 event significantly increased the number of hazards in the Toronto area, requiring TRCA to rethink its approach to erosion management in its jurisdiction to more effectively deal with the effects of climate change. Disclosure of Information Related to Private Property Although TRCA has been assisting private landowners with erosion control works for decades, prior to the July 8, 2013 storm, this assistance was typically limited to one or two projects per year. And while there was always a long list of sites waiting for assistance, there was never a lengthy delay between completing the detailed geotechnical investigations and proceeding with the stabilization works as exists today. While a large number of studies can be completed annually with the available funding, only a limited number of critical and high ranking sites have been able to be repaired through 2014, 2015 and 2016 due to the cost of the repairs at each project site. The concern that some residents have raised is that the detailed investigations have flagged their property as being at-risk, and that this determination has effectively devalued their property and/or complicated their ability to sell the property. Furthermore, since the cost of repairs are typically beyond the financial means of the average homeowner, many owners are upset that their property is not forecasted to receive assistance for several years while higher priorities are addressed. In response to these concerns, at Authority Meeting #4/16 staff recommended seeking a legal review of all information collected regarding private property through its Erosion Management Program and how it is disclosed pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). The purpose of this review was to advise what changes were recommended to TRCA’s verbal and written communications, if any, to ensure that property owners wishing to receive assistance with erosion control works have been duly advised of what information is collected, who it may be disclosed to, and how it may be used. Until the aforementioned legal direction was received, staff recommended treating the 2016-2026 forecast of projects involving private property as confidential. Staff has since sought legal direction from Gardiner Roberts LLP regarding liability and the release of information related to its Erosion Management Program (Attachment 3). Gardiner Roberts LLP considered: 1. Whether disclosure of information collected by TRCA or its consultants regarding the condition (i.e. slope stability or erosion risk assessment findings) of private property would violate the MFIPPA, and whether such information would be considered “personal information” of or about the property owner under MFIPPA; 171 2. Whether disclosure of such information would subject TRCA to liability at common law; 3. What, if any, changes are recommended to TRCA’s permission to enter agreements and/or other means of communication (e.g. storm damage information portal and resident update meetings) to ensure that property owners wishing to receive erosion control assistance have been advised of what information is collected, how it may be used and who it may be disclosed to. On October 13, 2016, TRCA was advised that “information and findings contained in geotechnical reports relating to the condition of the property is information about the property and is not information about an identifiable individual and therefore is not ‘personal information’ within the meaning of the MFFIPA…While the report discloses the municipal address of the subject properties, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has found that addresses alone do not constitute personal information” (Gardiner Roberts LLP, 2016). It was concluded that “disclosure by TRCA of information in its records about the condition (i.e. slope stability or erosion risk) of a property located at a specific municipal address (without disclosure of the names of property owner(s) or resident(s)), that is collected from investigations or works carried out by TRCA, would not be a disclosure of personal information about an individual under MFIPPA.” Furthermore, Gardiner Roberts LLP concluded that “disclosure by TRCA of the results of slope stability and erosion risk assessments or studies carried out by TRCA or its consultants that conclude that private property within TRCA’s jurisdiction is, or over a period of time will be, impacted negatively by erosion, would not, in our view, create liability on the part of TRCA to property owners such that property owners would have a potential claim for breach of confidence”(Gardiner Roberts LLP, 2016). Based on the legal direction provided by Gardiner Roberts LLP, a ‘Notice of Collection’ has been incorporated into permission to enter agreements and formal correspondence with private landowners. This ‘Notice of Collection’ serves to communicate that “pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the information is collected under the authority of the Conservation Authorities Act, and information may be disclosed to Government and Municipal agencies for review and comment, or to members of the public through the Freedom of Information process. No information, material, or conclusions collected or reached through studies, reports, or otherwise will be kept confidential, and information may be made available to interested parties without the consent of the Owner”. Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan In the spring of 2014 the City of Toronto requested TRCA’s assistance with the drafting of a Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan to be received by the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee from the General Manager of Toronto Water. The purpose of the Plan was to advise City Council of the existing programs in place to manage watercourse erosion risks and to respond to damage caused by accelerated erosion during intense storms; and to request that Council uphold the principles of watercourse management in Toronto. One of the principles included a requirement that Toronto Water continue to report to City Council, as part of the annual Toronto Water budget submission, the 10 year TRCA/Toronto Water coordinated capital plan of erosion improvement works. To uphold this principle, TRCA and Toronto Water meet regularly to review priorities and TRCA provides Toronto Water with an annual workplan for all projects proposed to be completed with the Critical Erosion and Flood Works funding prior to proceeding, to promote collaboration and cost savings through coordinated planning, design and construction processes. 172 Proactive and Minor Works Funding At Authority Meeting #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, staff provided an update on the Critical Erosion and Flood Works projects in progress, and highlighted the need to diversify its approach to erosion management in Toronto by allocating a portion of each year’s funding to proactive and minor works to realize the economic and social benefits of preventing further damage from occurring during future storm events. As per the staff report at Authority #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, the allocation to minor/proactive works was proposed to be increased to approximately 15% in 2017, with the option to increase/decrease the amount as needed to balance reactive and proactive works. Since bringing the first staff report on the July 8th event forward to the Authority at Meeting #6/13, held on July 26, 2013, geotechnical investigations have been completed or are in progress at over 150 properties, and more than $20M in studies and repairs have been completed of the estimated $40M in damage from that event. May 2017 Sustained Rainfall and High Lake Levels Significant rainfall and prolonged high water levels in Lake Ontario resulted in widespread flooding along the Toronto shoreline and at the Toronto Islands, and erosion at several locations in the Toronto area. TRCA was the first responder at many of these impacted sites, where damage ranged from damaged pathways, to displaced armouring, to flooding of homes on Toronto Islands and major landslides on ravine slopes. The majority of the immediate response was directed to the Leuty Lifeguard Station, Toronto Islands, Woodbine Beach and the Eastern Beaches Boardwalk. Leuty Lifeguard Station required emergency repair to an existing concrete breakwater and a secondary beach curb to protect the building from wave up rush. The Toronto Islands required the purchase and deployment of 35,000 sandbags,1,000 metre bags and the rental of five industrial pumps for dewatering. Woodbine Beach required dewatering and beach profile modifications to protect infrastructure and preserve park operations. Over 400 metres of the eastern beaches boardwalk required emergency repair and the placement of a beach curb for wave up rush protection. In addition to the aforementioned emergency efforts, through TRCA’s Erosion Management Program (EMP), a comprehensive inspection of all existing 227 TRCA waterfront erosion control structures was completed from Marie Curtis Park to the mouth of the Rouge River. Staff also inspected damage to private and municipal assets including Western Beaches, Ontario Place, Tommy Thompson Park, Beachpoint Promenade, Millennium Square Beachfront Park and Ajax Waterfront Park, while other staff provided immediate support to address flooding at the Toronto Islands. Based on boat, aerial, drone and foot monitoring, numerous areas of concern have been identified. Sixteen landslides have been reported across the length of the Scarborough Bluffs from the R.C Harris Water Treatment Plant to Greyabbey Trail at the time this report was prepared, and are being cleaned up on a priority basis. Approximately 75 metres of eroded shoreline structures has been repaired to protect construction access roads below Sylvan Avenue, the Guild Inn and Fishleigh Drive. With respect to the landslides that resulted from three days of sustained rain in early May 2017, TRCA responded by installing temporary safety fencing at several hazard locations, while commissioning detailed investigations to confirm the extent of risk to homes and other essential structures. 173 A summary of TRCA’s response to the May 2017 sustained rainfall and high lake level is outlined in Attachment 1. This submission includes the status of the remedial work by location, TRCA’s recommendations for further action, and the cost to complete each recommended action using existing Critical Erosion and Flood Works funding, excluding those sites denoted as being cost recoverable from the City of Toronto (e.g. Toronto Islands, Woodbine Beach). TRCA has and will continue to prioritize maintenance repairs based on the results of these inspections, and is working with municipal staff to undertake collaborative repair efforts and flood mitigation measures wherever possible to reduce risk to public safety and infrastructure throughout TRCA’s jurisdiction. As part of this collaboration and to help foster good decision making on prioritizing protection efforts, TRCA also produced inundation mapping for both the Islands and the Toronto shoreline showing the potential limit of static flooding at different elevations above sea level. Minor and Proactive Works As the primary objective of TRCA’s Erosion Management Program is to reduce risk to life and property from the hazards of erosion, the majority of funding continues to be allocated to sites where significant damage has already occurred. Since receiving direction by the Authority at Meeting #7/15 on July 24, 2015 to allocate a portion of each year’s funding to lower priority sites where proactive and minor works may prevent future failures, staff has initiated an extensive review of potential candidate sites to inform the appropriate portion of annual funding that should be allocated to this category of work. Prior to the extensive damage caused by the May 2017 sustained rains and high lake levels, the recommended allocation for 2017 was 15%. As illustrated in Attachment 2, the proposed allocation to proactive and minor works in 2017 has been reduced to 3% of the total available budget for valley erosion hazards to fund urgent geotechnical investigations where homes have been threatened by landslides, and high priority maintenance work required along the Toronto waterfront to repair damage from high lake levels and wave uprush. RATIONALE Based on the legal review of the collection and disclosure of information related to private property by Gardiners Roberts LLP in 2016, staff recommends releasing the proposed 2017-2026 Critical Erosion and Flood Works workplan for private properties awaiting assistance through the Erosion Management Program. This information is proposed to be disseminated to all municipal councillors with affected properties in their respective wards, as well as directly to the property owners, via TRCA’s Storm Damage Information Portal, email and hard copy depending on the individual landowners’ preferred communication method with TRCA. Since the 2016 workplan report to the Authority on May 27, 2016, staff has worked to implement priority projects, and to reassess all other sites waiting for assistance for both major and minor/proactive works to develop the 2017 workplan outlined herein. To comply with the principles of the City’s Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan, the workplan was developed with input from Toronto Water in early 2017, however recent changes in priorities as a result of the May weather events requires confirmation of Toronto Water support, and Council approval for reallocations over $250,000, before new projects are able to proceed. Staff therefore requests to proceed with the planning and implementation of all new projects outlined in Attachment 2, subject to all required approvals and confirmation of funding. 174 FINANCIAL DETAILS The total available budget for Critical Erosion and Flood Works projects in 2017 is $11.73 million, which includes unspent funds from 2016 carried forward, 2017 capital funding, landowner contributions, and funding from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) under the 2017-2018 Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program. Attachment 2 shows how the funding is allocated across the priority projects. All capital funding for Critical Erosion and Flood Works projects is provided by the City of Toronto within the accounts listed in Attachment 2. Some adjustments to individual projects funded under this capital works program may be required to respond to changing priorities as a result of additional severe weather events, and hence are subject to further revisions as the year progresses. Significant changes to the 2017 workplan will be brought forward to a future Authority meeting for approval, and to Toronto City Council as required. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The proposed details of work to be done for each priority project under the Critical Erosion and Flood Works funding envelope are provided in Attachment 2. Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: mmcdonnell@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: mmcdonnell@trca.on.ca Date: June 13, 2017 Attachments: 2 175 Attachment 1. May 2017 sustained rainfall and flooding event response by TRCA ACTION LOCATIONS STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS COST TO COMPLETE ACTION 1. Preliminary damage assessments including inspection, reporting, meetings, and associated project management tasks 281 locations across TRCA’s jurisdiction On-going. Reports of new hazard sites has slowed down. I. Undertake third-party preliminary risk assessments to determine further action (Action #2). II. Recommend sites for emergency or maintenance works (Action #6-#9). III. Refer damage to municipal infrastructure and property to appropriate City staff (complete). $15,000 2. Preliminary slope stability and erosion risk assessments 11 properties in the City of Toronto ranked high priority by TRCA inspectors and recommended for detailed investigation by a geotechnical engineer. On-going. Preliminary assessments will be conducted as new sites are identified. Undertake detailed geotechnical investigations for properties assessed on a priority basis (Action #3). $10,000 3. Emergency detailed geotechnical investigations 11 properties in the City of Toronto ranked high-critical priority by TRCA inspectors and recommended for detailed investigation by a geotechnical engineer (Rose Park Cres, Windhill Cres and Burbank Dr) Three (3) detailed studies initiated; two locations are adjacent to existing study areas (Windhill Cescent and Rose Park Crescent) and will be completed under expanded study area limits Review findings of detailed inspections and prioritize remedial works according to risk to public safety and private property, in consultation with Toronto Water. $75,000 4. Guildwood Parkway Long Term Stable Slope Crest Line Delineation 405-483 Guildwood Parkway (Scarborough Bluffs) Complete Updated LTSSC confirms risk to additional properties along Guildwood Parkway at #435, #441, #461 and #479 (in addition to previously identified properties at #441, #447 and #449) $10,000 176 ACTION LOCATIONS STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS COST TO COMPLETE ACTION 5. Toronto Islands, Leuty Lifeguard Station, Woodbine Beach, Eastern Beaches Boardwalk Multiple properties and infrastructure at- risk of flooding Placement of 35,000 sandbags,1000 metre bags and the rental of 5 industrial pumps for dewatering; armouring around Leuty Lifeguard Station and along the boardwalk to protect against high lake levels Continue to monitor the situation and deploy more resources and equipment as required upon request by the City of Toronto. Begin flood planning for future flooding. Toronto Islands: $350,000 to date plus $250,000 recommended for future flood planning Leuty Lifeguard Station: $200,000 Eastern Beaches: $350,000 plus $150,000 recommended for inland lake dewatering and remainder of work Note: these costs are recoverable from City of Toronto Parks 6. Emergency and minor construction works to protect at-risk properties Temporary fencing/barriers erected adjacent to 7 properties. Downspout extensions and other works to be evaluated based on site conditions. On-going. Minor works will be assessed as new sites are identified. Implement minor works to prevent further erosion or slope instability at impacted areas (extend downspouts to base of slope and tarp exposed soils). Erect barriers and safety fencing to restrict access to unstable locations. $10,000 7. Waterfront Landslide Cleanups There have been 16 landslides across the length of the Scarborough Bluffs from the R.C Harris Water Treatment Plant to Greyabbey Trail. All high priority landslides have been cleaned up (6 total). Other sites to be monitored and cleaned as needed in the future. Continue cleaning landslides in areas that are frequently accessed by the public and pose a safety risk $100,000 8. Waterfront Access Road Repairs (Fishleigh Avenue and Guild Inn) Shoreline below Sylvan Avenue, Guild Inn and Fishleigh Drive Completed. Works will be monitored and additional maintenance may be required. Continue waterfront repairs as required. $50,000 177 ACTION LOCATIONS STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS COST TO COMPLETE ACTION 9. Minor Maintenance Works of Existing Shoreline Infrastructure Maintenance of existing works at Marie Curtis Park, Port Union Waterfront Park, Ashbridge’s Bay, Bluffers Park and Long Branch Park as the top priority sites. Other Marie Curtis Park maintenance completed and crew will then move to other structures as crews are available Continue to repair erosion control infrastructure as required. To the limit of available funding (approximately$ 200,000 in 2017); remainder of works deferred to 2018+ Total cost $1,770,000 178 Attachment 2. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2017 Workplan Funding Account Project Name 2016 Year End Balance (Carried forward to 2017) 2017 Approved Capital Funding 2017 Proposed Revised Capital Funding* Other Funding 2017 Proposed Budget Status Project Details 107-24 Flood Control Channel Maintenance (1,185,270)$ (500,000)$ - - (1,685,270)$ Ongoing from 2014 •Black Creek: dredging of the dam behind Troutbrook Drive •Yonge-York Mills Channel: resume and complete sediment and vegetation from the limits of the channel (Donino Ave. to Knightswood Rd.) •Lavender Creek: sediment and vegetation removal (City owned channel) •Sheppard Channel: sediment and vegetation removal (City owned channel) 135-01 Guildwood Parkway Erosion Hazard Mitigation (Ward 43)(284,999)$ (1,500,000)$ - - (1,784,999)$ Ongoing from 2013 •Funding for acquisition in the following order of priority: #449, #447, and #441 •#449 has been bought and sold multiple times since 2014 at over $1M; TRCA is unable to acquire for appraised value of $230K which applies erosion hazard discount •Owners of #447 have rejected TRCA's offer to acquire (June 12/17) •Given inability to acquire top two hazard sites and recent LTSSC update for Guildwood Parkway, reallocate $800K to acquire #461 as home is at risk and owners wish to sell to TRCA now; balance of funding to be reallocated to pursue acqusition and/or protection of another hazard property on Guildwood Parkway pending approval from Toronto Water and Toronto City Council 175-01 1 Midland - 81-83 Fishleigh Erosion Control Project (Ward 36)-$ (1,500,000)$ - ($830,000) (2,330,000)$ Ongoing from 2014 •1 Midland Avenue acquired in 2014 •83 Fishleigh Drive acquired in 2016 as per Board direction at Authority Meeting #6/15 held on June 25, 2015 under Resolution #A118/15 •Buttress cancelled •Prepare access route and stockpile material May-July 2017; construct shoreline work July - November 2017 pending DFO approval •Obtain approval from Toronto Water and Toronto City Council for the reallocation of $830,000 from Valley Erosion Hazards below 133-99 Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy (2016-2017) -$ (300,000)$ - - (300,000)$ Ongoing from 2016; extend study to December 31, 2018 using balance of 2017 funds •Identify potential future erosion 'hot spots' in Toronto by modeling the July 8, 2013 event over select ravines in Toronto that have been identified as vulnerable based on site characteristics and other data collected •2017 will involve using the information collected in 2016 to develop a comprehensive strategy to idenfity locations, type and costs of proactive hazard mitigation •Initiate extensive consultation with Solid Waste Management re closed 133-01 Valley Erosion Hazards (including July 8 storm sites) ($1,674,903) ($3,720,000) ($4,330,696) ($870,384) ($5,201,080) Ongoing from 2014 ●See information by subproject in italics below ● $234,287 proposed reallocation to Waterfront Major Maintenance below ●$830,000 proposed reallocation to Fishleigh-Midland above pending Toronto City Council approval ●Other funds are MNRF & Landowner Contributions -$540,000 Annual •General program management •Annual re-inspection of all participating properties •Legal support to execute agreements -$180,000 Annual •Minor and proactive works such as downspout extensions/redirections, removal of unstable structures, regrading, plantings, and other undertakings to prevent erosion damage from lower ranking sites •Approximate allocation of 15% of 2017 Capital Levy • 150K allocated to minor works at Azalea Court and concept designs at Roslin Avenue (2016 investigation); The balance of 15% total funding has been reallocated to higher priorities following the May 2017 landslides and high lake level damage -$50,000 Ongoing from 2014 •Ongoing extensive channel and slope stabilization work to protect water infrastructure and private property at the top of slope •2017 involves completing work along the north tributary and slope stabilization work ($270,000) $700,000 Ongoing from 2014 •Ongoing extensive channel and slope stabilization work to protect water infrastructure and private property at the top of slope •2017 involves completing work along the north tributary and slope stabilization work at 117 Whitburn Crescent. Design works for 111 Whitburn Cresscent to be completed through 2017 with implementation in 2018 •Budget includes 270K property owner financial contribution toward cost of work (111-117 Whitburn Crescent) -$200,000 Ongoing from 2014 •Stabilization works from 1 Katrine Road and 69 - 53 Riverhead Drive complete (Phase 1) •2017 involves completing stabilization works at 47-49 Riverhead Drive (Phase 2) •Remaining participating properties along Riverhead Drive to be studied at more detailed level in 2017 through interpretation of previously collected subsurface data. Staff are assessing addition properties on Riverhead Drive for potential erosion hazard issues through 2017 (Phase 3) ($150,384) $135,000 Ongoing from 2014 •Work at 5 Old Yonge substantially complete •Work at 14-16 Brookfield involves removing landslide and restoring slope in summer 2017 •Budget includes $150,384 contribution from private landowners for the works at 5 Old Yonge Street and 14 - 16 Brookfield Road ($430,000) $860,000 Ongoing from 2015 •Class EA complete and final approvals underway •Work involves constructing a vegetated buttress at the toe of slope and relocating an existing playground back from the slope crest to allow the upper slope to self-stabilize •Budget includes 430K from Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program -$985,000 Ongoing from 2015 •Class EA underway •Phase 1 work scheduled to commence summer 2017 pending receipt of all approvals -$50,000 Ongoing from 2015 •Class EA underway through 2017 to identify and select the preferred alternative solution •Detailed design to be finalized through 2017 ($20,000)$20,000 Ongoing from 2015 •Emergency works previously completed at 26 Norfield Crescent in 2015 •Update of the LTSSC for the remaining properties on Norfield Crescent through 2017 following construction of an armourstone wall at the toe of the slope by Toronto Water in 2015 •Budget includes 20K private landowner contribution Program management, monitoring, legal support, multiple Wards) Black Creek in Downsview Dells between 2 Jennifer Court - 111 Whitburn Crescent Emergency Works (including 2 Jennifer Court - 137 Whitburn Crescent) (Ward 9) Minor and proactive works (multiple wards, varied scope of work) Black Creek in Downsview Dells between 2 Jennifer Court - 111 Whitburn Crescent Emergency Works (111 - 117 Whitburn Crescent) (Ward 9) Phase 1 Riverhead Drive Emergency Works, and Phase 2 - 3 Slope Stability and Erosion Risk Assessments (Ward 2) 5 Old Yonge incl 14-16 Brookfield (Ward 25) 1025 Scarlett (Toronto Community Housing apartment complex) (Ward 2) Black Creek between 14 Appletree and Seeley Drive (Ward 9) 30 Northline Road (Ward 31) 22 - 32 Norfield Crescent (Ward 2) 179 Funding Account Project Name 2016 Year End Balance (Carried forward to 2017) 2017 Approved Capital Funding 2017 Proposed Revised Capital Funding* Other Funding 2017 Proposed Budget Status Project Details -$290,080 Ongoing from 2016 •Continuation of detailed geotechnical investigations to confirm extent of risk and prioritize assistance with erosion control works from 2016 •Specific addresses omitted pending legal review of program communications to protect homeowner privacy -$40,000 Ongoing from 2015 •Detailed design works(internal) through 2017 for potential major maintenance at the toe of the slope and stormwater management improvements in 2018 (tentative) -$30,000 Ongoing from 2015 •Detailed design works through 2017 for potential major maintenance behind Ridgegate Crescent in 2018 (tentative) -$500,000 New •Completion of detailed design and implementation •Recommended shoring of existing upper retaining walls and removal of lower walls with re-grading/planting and land conveyance to TRCA $40,000 New •Completion of detailed design $75,000 New •Interim works to support Toronto Water's Geomorphic Systems Master Plan for Wilket Creek $500,000 New •Partnership project with Toronto Water to cost-share storm sewer and bank/trail protection works utilizing one design-build process -$2,000 2015 project ON HOLD •Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property owner participation $2,000 2015 project ON HOLD •Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities -$2,000 2015 project ON HOLD •Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities 241-20 WesternWaterfront Major Maintenance Strategy (Wards 6, 13, 14) ($250,000) - Ongoing from 2016 •Year 2 of 2; completion of study with final report •Results will inform 2018+ WF maintenance priorities 241-01 Waterfront Major Maintenance & Remedial Works ($7,778) ($188,000) ($430,065) ($430,065) Annual •$234,287 reallocated from Valley Erosion Hazards for several landslide cleanups and interim/emergency works related to high water levels ($3,152,951) ($7,958,000) ($870,384) ($11,731,415)Totals Phase 2 detailed geotechnical assessments Heath Crescent (Ward 27) Rose Park Crescent (Ward 27) Storer Drive (Ward 7) Windhill (Ward 7) Clarinda Drive (Ward 24) Gwendolen Crescent (Ward 23) Burbank Drive (Ward 24) Ridge Point Crescent (Ward 12) Ridgegate Crescent (Ward 5) 21-24 Disan Court (Ward 1) Bucksburn Road (Ward 1) Weston Road Storm Sewer Replacement and Humber Trail Protection Royal York Road (Ward 5) Topcliff Avenue (Ward 8) 2 Kevi Lane (Ward 3) 9 Alderbrook Drive (Ward 25) 180 RES.#A102/17 - TRCA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY Approval of TRCA’s Community Engagement Strategy 2017-2027. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has almost 60 years of experience and extensive expertise in collaborating with stakeholders and grassroots organizations in all aspects of watershed and waterfront management; AND WHEREAS TRCA recognizes the important role watershed and waterfront engagement (including Duffins-Carruthers Watershed Resource Group, Rouge Park Alliance, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance and Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition and their predecessors) has played for over two decades in building community stewardship capacity to help TRCA meet The Living City objectives, and planning and implementation priorities of watersheds and waterfront plans/priorities; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the draft 2017-2027 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Community Engagement Strategy be approved; THAT TRCA staff be directed to initiate implementation of key immediate priorities namely: the proposed Citizen Governance Model (as outlined in Attachment 2), including the terms of reference and recruitment of members for the Regional Watershed Council, Indigenous Liaison Committee, and Youth Council, online engagement platform and Community Consultation Office; THAT staff continue to consult with TRCA’s partner municipalities to seek input and alignment throughout the planning and development of the proposed Community Consultation Office aimed at supporting both mandatory and non-mandatory public consultation needs; THAT progress reports on TRCA’s community engagement activities be presented to the Authority on an annual basis; THAT the Community Engagement Strategy be reviewed and updated as needed based on new trends and/or opportunities; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to finalize and publish the Strategy for internal and external communication as appropriate. CARRIED BACKGROUND The roots of the conservation authority movement were sowed in the principle that watershed focused programs be partnership-based and community-driven. At both the Guelph Conference in 1941 and the London Conference in 1944, community and sector leaders from across Ontario engaged in a dialogue related to addressing pressing natural resource management issues, with a particular emphasis on integrated watershed management. 181 With the advent of watershed and waterfront committees and task forces in the 1980s, citizen committees have continued to play a significant role in strengthening TRCA’s ability to achieve watershed planning and management objectives. Some key accomplishments resulting from citizen committees and task forces include the development of watershed plans, watershed report cards, and the designation of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. For more details on the accomplishments of watershed groups refer to minutes of Authority Meeting #3/15, held on March 27, 2015. In the early years of watershed planning, TRCA’s community engagement approach was both unique and effective in addressing the needs of collaborative watershed management. However, as the Toronto region continues to face complex regional sustainability challenges (i.e., urbanization, growth pressures, climate change and aging infrastructure), a broader and more progressive citizen engagement model with greater alignment across TRCA’s watersheds is required. TRCA’s Strategic Plan (2013 - 2022), Building The Living City, recognizes the important historic role of citizen participation in the conservation authority movement and calls for “engagement of a broad cross-section of the population employing unique outreach tools and collaboration models to capitalize on our current strengths and avail new opportunities.” At Authority Meeting #3/15, held on March 27, 2015, Resolution #A37/15 was approved, in part, as follows: …THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff undertake a review of TRCA-wide public engagement and new opportunities for community and stakeholder activities and involvement, in light of recent trends and opportunities in civic engagement; THAT TRCA staff, current members of community-based subcommittees, community leaders and other stakeholders be consulted throughout the process as appropriate; … …AND FURTHER THAT a report on the proposed model be brought back to the Authority. Further to this, at Authority Meeting #10/15, held on November 27, 2015, the Authority approved the Future Directions in Education at TRCA, specifically focused on the development of a Community Learning and Engagement Model. The following two key recommendations from that report are supported through the findings and recommendations of the proposed community engagement strategy: THAT TRCA education centres be redeveloped into community engagement centres with an emphasis on local participation in program development and delivery; THAT TRCA establish urban activity zones as mechanisms to improve program delivery within urban areas, and support increased community engagement and participation in community sustainability activities. The development process of the Community Engagement Strategy (CES) provided staff the opportunity to not only look at new approaches to citizen governance, but also undertake a comprehensive review of its current community engagement activities while examining new trends in community engagement which will guide future directions in community engagement at TRCA. To clearly understand TRCA’s current market and trends in best practices, the Community Engagement Strategy was completed in two phases: Phase 1 consisted of developing a background Community Engagement Assessment Report (CEAR) and Phase 2 included development of Community Engagement Strategy. 182 Staff from across TRCA participated in the development of the CES, along with an external working group comprised of members of past TRCA watershed committees and other TRCA citizen and hosted committees. Additionally, municipal staff and interested board members have also been consulted on various components of the Community Engagement Strategy. Consultation with municipalities will be ongoing as TRCA staff implements recommendations from the CES. The firm of Hardy Stevenson Associates helped staff with the development of the CES. A copy of the Phase 1 Community Engagement Assessment Report and draft TRCA Community Engagement Strategy 2017-2027 is available on request. Community Engagement Assessment Report (CEAR) Based on market data provided by TRCA and research and analysis conducted by IndEco Consulting Inc., the Community Engagement Assessment Report provides direction on how to engage the community in a targeted and strategic way, taking into consideration the demographics of the TRCA’s jurisdiction, and drawing on the TRCA’s existing activities, gaps and best practices from other organizations: four key areas were investigated as part of this work: Market Segment Analysis was undertaken to provide an overview of TRCA’s jurisdictional user demographic using various data sources (i.e., Environics, TRCA parks study, etc.). Each watershed was characterized using this data. A sample watershed summary is provided in Attachment 1. Scan of TRCA’s Current Engagement Practices and programs was undertaken to develop an understanding of the current gaps in engagement activities that TRCA is undertaking. This scan was augmented by an internal staff survey to identify barriers and challenges from staff perspective. A Gap Analysis was undertaken to review the findings of the Market Segment Analysis and the TRCA Current Engagement Practices Scan to identify where gaps exist between TRCA’s market and the activities currently used to engage the community. Gaps that were directly identified by staff through internal interviews and consultations were also considered. TRCA’s current activities were scored based on increasing level of public impact (inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower) using “Spectrum of Public Participation” from International Association of Public Participation. This analysis also identified data gaps for future consideration. A Best Practices Review was carried out to identify best practices in civic engagement and community mobilization. The best practices selected also sought to fill gaps in TRCA engagement activities identified as part of the gap analysis mentioned above. Since TRCA staff possesses a strong understanding of best practices within TRCA’s jurisdiction, the organizations reviewed and consulted were either outside TRCA’s jurisdiction or have a national focus. These include: • City of Melbourne, Australia - Wiki-based online engagement tool and Citizen Jury (stratified committee); • Citizen’s Foundation, Iceland - Better Reykjavik online tool; • WE.org, International WE day - large scaled event with earned participation; • WWF, Canada - Pandamonium (fundraising event/social) and Community Panda (crowd funding); and • City of Calgary, Canada - Mayor’s Youth Council. 183 TRCA staff also developed a detailed inventory of municipal environmental advisory committees, community engagement/consultation offices and other municipal activities relevant to this work. Community Engagement Strategy For TRCA, community engagement means people working collaboratively, through inspired action and learning, to create and realize bold visons for their common future (adopted from Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement). The Community Engagement Strategy applies to both mandatory and mission specific engagement activities of TRCA. Purpose The Purpose of TRCA’s CES is “to align and guide TRCA’s approaches to civic engagement over the next ten years so that TRCA supports broader and deeper community mobilization and maximizes collective impact in pursuit of TRCA’s vision for The Living City.” Goals The following goals deliver the vision and mission of the Community Engagement Strategy: a) Advance regional sustainability and local watershed priorities through collaboration, shared learning, strategic alliances and/or partnerships with the public, private and/or non-profit sectors; b) Broaden and deepen TRCA’s reach into its communities through new inclusive engagement models and tools and that engage a wide range of residents, community leaders, groups and businesses and by investing in community-based engagement programs. c) Facilitate a coordinated approach and guidance for community engagement in all aspects of TRCA programs and align with and support municipal partner priorities, when requested d) Establish and support an effective community governance model that facilitates collaboration, builds capacity and advocacy around watershed and regional sustainability issues; e) Augment and scale established engagement programs that are aligned with the goals of the Engagement Strategy, and invest in new strategic priorities; f) Maximize impact by advancing priorities that bring multiple interests together to work on shared interests; g) Maximize impact and continuous improvement through monitoring, measuring and reporting on engagement activities; and h) Achieve financial resiliency in support of the community engagement strategy through grants, collaborations, strategic alliances, social enterprise and/or partnerships. Recommendations There are eighteen recommendations and forty three associated actions included in the Community Engagement Strategy categorized by four areas of focus: a) Who to engage?; b) How to engage?; c) How to support?; and d) How to evaluate? (Attachment 3). Implementation, Communications, Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation The Community Engagement Strategy includes three implementation frameworks: a) an implementation framework to guide implementation of recommendations and actions from the Community Engagement Strategy; b) an engagement and communications framework which guides development of engagement and communications plans; and 184 c) monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework guides performance evaluation of communications and community engagement activities based on key performance indicators (KPI). Immediate Implementation Priorities Regional Watershed Alliance The new citizen governance model being proposed by TRCA will be inclusive to a wide range of experience, knowledge and perspectives. It will advance the engagement of a more diverse population to build capacity that leads to collective ownership and actions. The Regional Watershed Alliance is expected to be launched in 2017, followed by the finalization and launch of watershed working groups and youth council. Staff will initiate finalization of terms of reference and recruitment process following the approval of CES (refer to Attachment 2 for more details on the proposed Citizen Governance Model). Indigenous Engagement The Strategy defines current practices for Indigenous engagement at TRCA. A draft Indigenous engagement approach has been developed as part of this Strategy; however the goals, principles and practices around Indigenous engagement at TRCA, including the development of the proposed Indigenous Liaison Committee needs to be further defined in consultation with Indigenous communities. To facilitate this work an Indigenous Liaison Officer will be hired following the approval of CES. Community Consultation Office The proposed Community Consultation Office supports the implementation of the Community Engagement Strategy as it will provide specialized community consultation services for internal and external stakeholders for both mandatory and non-mandatory consultations. Municipal consultations will be part of the process for developing the overall terms of reference for the Community Consultation Office. Online Engagement Platform Engagement HQ (Yoursay.ca) is an online engagement tool that TRCA purchased in 2017 with the objective of engaging a wider audience. TRCA will be launching a wide-range of projects such as The Living City Report Card and proposed TRCA Trails Strategy in 2017 to pilot the online engagement tool. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Community Engagement Strategy has been developed using existing Watershed Strategies division program budget and resources and with support from TRCA staff from other divisions. Future financial support to the implementation of CES is presented in Recommendation #15 in Attachment 3. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Finalize and publish the Community Engagement Strategy; Recruit Indigenous Liaison Officer; Develop terms of reference for proposed Regional Watershed Alliance and recruit members for governance committees; Launch the Regional Watershed Alliance; Initiate planning and consultation for the proposed Community Consultation Office by establishing a cross-divisional expert team; 185 Launch and pilot community engagement projects through TRCA’s online engagement platform; and Organize and host a watershed forum. Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: sdhir@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Emails: csharma@trca.on.ca Date: June 8, 2017 Attachments: 3 186 2016 Population 41,250 77% 42% 11% 2% < 14 > 65 Population Growth 80%20% Owned 82% 18%Rented $110,111 $93,104 Income Median Household /yr Income Average Household /yr Household Income 24%University Education 5%Unemployed Housing Immigration 5 yr 10 yr 10% 18% Visible Minorities HOUSE APARTMENT 49% 17% 13% 6% Black South Asian Filipino Top 3 Visible Minorities Immigrants* Top 5 Countries 1. Philippines 2. Jamaica 3. UK 4. India 5. Pakistan 5 yr 10 yr21% < 14 69% 14 - 65 10% > 65 www.trca.ca *Total immigrants by country of origin (DemoStats 2016) Lake Ontario Humber Mimico Etobicoke Don Waterfront Highland Rouge Petticoat Duffins Carruthers Creek <30k /yr $10% 30 to 60k /yr $18% 60 to 90k /yr $20% 90 to 125k /yr $21% >125k /yr $31%34% of the total population Data source: Environics Analytics - DemoStats 2016 (June 2016) 5 and 10-year Growth for < 14 and > 65 Population Composition (2016) Attachment 1 187 1 Attachment 2 PROPOSED TRCA REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE BACKGROUNDER June 12, 2017 1.0 CONTEXT Since the 1980s, TRCA watershed and waterfront committees and task forces have been instrumental in supporting TRCA’s watershed management activities. These committees included watershed residents and representatives from businesses, academia, agencies and local groups. Elected officials and municipal staff have also been part of these committees (please refer to attachment 1 for more details on previous committees). In the early years of watershed planning, TRCA’s community engagement approach was both unique and effective in addressing the needs of collaborative watershed management; however, TRCA’s jurisdiction is now facing more complex regional sustainability challenges (i.e., urbanization, growth pressures, climate change, and aging infrastructure). While the watershed approach continues to be crucial in ensuring the ecological integrity of our natural resources, we also require a broader citizen engagement to achieve desired impact for large scale transformation at both local and regional scale. In addition, TRCA’s Strategic Plan (2013 - 2022), Building The Living City, lays out the strategic directions the organization intends to pursue for the ten year period from 2013 to 2022. The Plan calls for engagement of a broad cross-section of the population employing unique outreach tools and collaboration models to capitalize on our current strengths and avail new opportunities. In 2015, upon the completion of the existing terms for the Don, Humber and Etobicoke-Mimico Watershed Committees, the Authority directed staff to update TRCA’s community focused engagement model in light of new trends and opportunities in civic engagement and to facilitate the implementation of the Strategic Plan. A new citizen governance model is being proposed as part of TRCA’s Community Engagement Strategy (in progress) along with a suite of other recommendations such as an on-line engagement platform and a consultation office. The overall purpose of the Community Engagement Strategy is “to align and guide TRCA’s approaches to civic engagement over the next ten years so that TRCA supports broader and deeper community mobilization and maximizes collective impact in pursuit of TRCA’s vision for The Living City.” 2.0 PROPOSED CITIZEN GOVERNANCE MODEL The proposed citizen governance model will include the following Citizen Committees hosted by TRCA. These committees will have the opportunity to work in collaboration with one another on specific projects and initiatives. The Terms of Reference for each of these committees will be developed following the TRCA Board approval of the Community Engagement Strategy. 188 2 Watershed/ Waterfront Working Groups Youth Council Indigenous Liaison Committee Regional Watershed Alliance TRCA Board The Living City Foundation Figure 1: Proposed TRCA Governance Model 1. Regional Watershed Alliance (More details in Section 3 below) Focus on local watershed and regional sustainability Advisory, action and advocacy role Reporting relationship with TRCA Board Collaborate with The Living City Foundation on community outreach and capacity building for regional and watershed/waterfront programs, including community led projects Collaborate with municipal Environmental Advisory Committees (EACs) and other Conservation Authorities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe Members will provide sector/community specific expertise Members will be recruited based on a diverse skill set/background 2. Youth Council: Council of existing active youth groups and possibly new recruits Representation on Regional Watershed Alliance Members provide their views and expertise as individuals who are part of a specific demographic 3. Watershed/Waterfront Working Groups : Working groups for the watersheds/waterfront which are set up as per the direction of the Regional Watershed Alliance Each Watershed/Waterfront Working group will focus on a particular watershed/waterfront-specific project Provide information/updates to Regional Watershed Alliance Members provide their views, expertise and local knowledge Working Groups may recruit additional watershed residents to the Group as required 189 3 4. Indigenous Liaison Committee: Advisory function to TRCA Board and Regional Watershed Alliance Liaise on Indigenous interests Develop stronger Indigenous relationships May Represent or attend meetings of the Regional Watershed Alliance as advisors Members will provide community perspective and local knowledge 3.0 PROPOSED REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE Mission: Local action, regional impact, shared priorities and resources Mandate: 1. Advocacy (regional and local environmental policy issues); 2. Advisory (input and consultation on initiatives, act as a resource to TRCA Board); 3. Action for collective impact (campaign/action oriented outreach around collective priorities); and 4. Collective reporting. Goals: Achieve The Living City Vision of Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity, and Sustainable Communities across TRCA’s nine watersheds/waterfront and Lake Ontario; Advocate on regional and local environmental policy issues; Act as a resource to TRCA, TRCA’s municipal partners and The Living City Foundation by providing advice on matters of community interest; Provide a platform for alignment on cross-jurisdictional priorities; Garner public support on environmental priorities across TRCA’s nine watersheds/waterfront and Lake Ontario; Mobilize and empower networks of local communities; Secure political support at all levels of government; and Maximize impact through resource and data sharing, measuring, and reporting on regional priorities. Broader Engagement The Regional Watershed Alliance will be engaged with the broader public via two delivery channels: 1. The Watershed Forum/Events Annual networking event to engage in conversations on issues/opportunities, share ideas and develop priorities for moving forward Use the Alliance as a platform for mobilization Forum will have a particular theme and feature experts and notable speakers 190 4 2. Online Engagement Platform Digital public engagement (Engagement HQ) Members of the public participate in decisions affecting their communities via YourSay.ca Get project related updates from TRCA Share ideas and information with one another and TRCA Share their needs and aspirations with TRCA The initiation of information gathering through surveys, online discussions, participatory budgeting, etc. Membership: The proposed membership of the Regional Watershed Alliance includes the following representation and a membership of approximately 40 members: TRCA Board representation by municipality or municipal nominations Sector representatives (Building, Green Infrastructure, Water, Education etc.) NGO representatives Financial/foundation representatives (TD, Manulife, RBC, Trillium) Think tanks (Neptis, Centre for Social Innovation) Provincial/Federal Political Representatives Representatives from Youth Council Representatives from Indigenous Liaison Committee (optional as representatives of Indigenous may attend the meeting as guest) Watershed residents (20-25 watershed resident members from across the watersheds) Representatives from diverse communities Term: 2 - 4 years (aligned with municipal council terms) Commitment Meetings will take place either day time or evening, as needed, and are proposed to be hosted on a quarterly basis. Resources The following resources/support will be made available to the Regional Watershed Alliance: 1. Secretariat/staff and administrative support will be provided to the Regional Watershed Alliance. 2. Living City Foundation Resources: collaborative fundraising, connections to other foundations. 191 Attachment 3 Community Engagement Strategy Recommendations and Actions Recommendation 1: Ensure ongoing engagement of general public. Action 1.1: Ensure that existing and new engagement programs that broadly target the general public engage a wide range of population segments across the watersheds and waterfront. Recommendation 2: Enhance existing relationships with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), thought-leaders and special interest groups. Action 2.1 To accelerate collective action towards common goals engage thought leaders, NGOs and special interest groups in the proposed governance model. Action 2.2 To mobilize grassroots action build capacity within local NGOs through shared learning, shared resources and access to information. Recommendation 3: Enhance relationships and engagement with the Indigenous communities. Action 3.1: To better understand the Indigenous communities and their expectations from TRCA, facilitate an Indigenous Liaison Committee as part of the proposed citizen governance model and hire an Indigenous relationship officer at the staff level. Action 3.2: Develop an Indigenous engagement policy or/and update the Aboriginal Engagement Guidelines (June 2015) in consultation with the Indigenous people. Action 3.3: Provide training to TRCA staff on Indigenous engagement, knowledge and culture. Recommendation 4: Maximize engagement of the appropriate age group(s). Action 4.1: Build the capacity of youth by building their skills and awareness specifically through TRCA’s proposed community engagement centres (education centers located at TRCA’s conservation parks). Action 4.2: Expand engagement programs to enable older adults and seniors to contribute to collective impact. Action 4.3: Include pre-school children in engagement activities. Recommendation 5: Enhance relationships with ethnically diverse communities. Action 5.1 Extend TRCA outreach and engagement programing to Community Hubs in Toronto and similar entities within other municipalities in TRCA’s jurisdiction. 192 Action 5.2 Build the capacity of a wide range of ethnic groups and new immigrants by building their skills and awareness. Action 5.3 Build new relationships and strengthen existing relationships with ethnic or faith- based organizations and community leaders. Action 5.4 Offer verbal or written communications in the most commonly spoken languages as appropriate (including French). Recommendation 6: Establish an effective and inclusive citizen-based governance model. Action 6.1: Establish a Regional Watershed Alliance, Watershed Working Groups, Indigenous Liaison Committee and a Youth Council to advance engagement between TRCA and its stakeholders. Action 6.2: Build capacity of Regional Watershed Alliance and Youth Council to act as a community resource to TRCA Board and staff and the Living City Foundation, advocate and advise on local watershed priorities and regional sustainability issues, and to maximize impact through collective action. Action 6.3: In consultation with municipal partners establish a clear line of communication and alignment approach with municipal environmental advisory committees. Recommendation 7: Establish a Community Consultation Office to support both mandatory and non-mandatory consultation and engagement. Action 7.1: Establish an internal team of TRCA staff to develop and launch the Community Consultation Office based on objectives set out in the CES. Action 7.2: In consultation with TRCA’s municipal partners, develop a partnership program to guide relationship between the municipal partners and the Community Consultation Office. Action 7.3 Research paradigm shifts and ongoing benchmarking against best practices to deploy innovative approaches to consultation and engagements. Recommendation 8: Maximize online engagement tools to strengthen the delivery of engagement programs through connecting external groups and organizations, facilitating discussions, and encouraging innovative and creative ideas. Action 8.1: Scale and enhance the YourSay.ca (recently deployed online tool) to support a variety of mandatory and grassroots engagement activities and develop an online engagement guide to facilitate effective use of this resource. Action 8.2: Evaluate YourSay.ca based on its objectives and expand it to include other engagement programs, as appropriate. 193 Recommendation 9: Develop a plan for and organize new large-scale public events to augment existing watershed events. Action 9.1: Organize a watershed forum on an annual basis. Action 9.2: Organize regular large-scale event(s) focused on youth. Recommendation 10: Deepen TRCA's reach by investing in established and new community-based engagement programs which build relationships, capacity and leadership among businesses, neighbourhoods, communities, schools and other special interest groups. Action 10.1 Develop strategies and tools for use across TRCA's engagement activities that support the capacity of individuals and organizations from participants in TRCA's programs to partners and leaders of Living City actions. Recommendation 11: Apply targeted approaches when developing new engagement programs that lead to future collaborations and/or partnerships with community leaders and groups. Action 11.1 Facilitate collaborations between different groups (e.g., youth and older adults or seniors) to build a stronger knowledge base among the groups. Action 11.2 Encourage and support individuals and groups leading/hosting community-led initiatives through progressive transferring of knowledge and expertise. Recommendation 12: Ensure that every engagement program has an engagement and communications plan aligned with the engagement goals in the CES. Action 12.1: Develop engagement and communication plans for all existing engagement programs or strengthen the existing plans. Action 12.2: Develop an engagement and communications plan for all new engagement programs at the beginning of program development. Recommendation 13: Establish an effective approach for internal coordination on engagement. Action 13.1: Establish an internal committee of TRCA staff from relevant departments to ensure cross collaboration on engagement programs. Recommendation 14: Strengthen TRCA’s brand awareness and corporate-wide communications. Action 14.1: Develop a corporate marketing and communications strategy to support the Engagement Strategy. 194 Recommendation 15: Support implement of the CES through reallocation of existing resources and new innovative funding mechanisms. Action 15.1 Develop a business plan and budget for new priority action as these are scheduled for implementation. Action 15.2 Collaborate with The Living City Foundation to generate funds to support the implementation of the recommendations in this CES, for other TRCA projects and community-led projects or initiatives. Action 15.3 Cultivate the culture of philanthropy through crowd funding, formal and informal fundraising event. Recommendation 16: Ensure that every engagement program has an evaluation plan. Action 16.1 Develop an evaluation plan for each new and existing program based on the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting framework and respective engagement and communications plans. Action 16:.2 Evaluate the programs for expansion or broad-scale implementation. Recommendation 17: Collect reliable, quality and up-to-date data (quantitative and qualitative) for effective program development and implementation, delivery, and monitoring and evaluation. Action 17.1 Collect data on the demographics of the jurisdiction at watershed and neighbourhood levels. Action 17.2 Collect data on Indigenous communities within the jurisdiction in collaboration with the Indigenous people. Action 17.3 Collect data on usage of ravines, municipal parks and waterfront trails. Action 17.4 Develop a system that can document and collate public or stakeholder interactions so as to provide an understanding of the demographics and spatial area being engaged and if and how their engagement is evolving overtime. Action 17.5 Deploy a client management system to understand community interactions with TRCA through a ranges of activities and to ensure these interactions are leveraged appropriately. Recommendation 18: Measure performance and report the results on an annual basis. Action 18.1 Develop annual reports based on key performance indicators established in the CES as a knowledge management and guidance tool to evaluate performance. Action 18.2 Develop annual reports on the status of the CES to the Board. Action 18.3 Review and update CES on a regular basis. 195 RES.#A103/17 - WETLAND PROTECTION Protection for Urban and Near-urban Wetlands. Responding to the Authority’s request for staff to report on what is being done to protect urban and near-urban wetlands. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with our provincial and municipal partners in the identification and protection of wetlands in the TRCA jurisdiction; THAT staff continue to encourage TRCA’s partners to support the integration of these wetland features into the greenspace planning for new communities as they are so important to the long term health of the natural heritage and hydrologic systems; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Conservation Ontario and TRCA’s municipal partners be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/16, held on January 6, 2017, amendment #A211/16 was approved as follows: THAT staff report back on what is being done to protect urban and near urban wetlands; Wetlands are a critical component of healthy watersheds. The ecosystem services that wetlands provide such as flood attenuation, improving air and water quality, and provision of habitat for many important species are invaluable. All watersheds in southern Ontario, including TRCA’s watersheds, currently have less wetland cover than they did prior to extensive European settlement (c. 1800), with losses exceeding 70% in many jurisdictions. Environment Canada in its report, “How Much Habitat is Enough?” recommends that “each major watershed should have a minimum, 10% wetland cover protected and restored.” On average, TRCA’s watersheds have less than 5% wetland cover (Figure 1). Even in the best cases, none of the individual watersheds reach the 10% target recommended by Environment Canada. 196 Figure 1 In a growing and intensifying city region such as TRCA’s jurisdiction, protected and functioning wetlands are critical to combatting the impacts of urbanization and the compounding effects of climate change. Policy and Regulation The protection of wetlands is a multi-jurisdictional endeavor requiring the different levels of government to work together. Provincial policy sets the general direction for protection of wetlands in the provincial interest, and municipalities and conservation authorities are responsible for implementing those policies through their own programs and policies. Provincial Policy Statement The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) is used by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to identify and evaluate wetlands to determine if they are Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs). Designated PSWs are protected under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014, which states that, “Development shall not be permitted in significant wetlands...unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.” Provincial Plans Provincial plans such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan also contain policies to protect all wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine and/or in the Greenbelt as “key natural heritage features” and “key hydrologic features” in which development or site alteration is prohibited. Municipal Official Plans Municipal Official Plans must contain wetland protection policies in accordance with the PPS and provincial plans. The policies of the PPS represent minimum standards; however, planning authorities and decision-makers may go beyond these minimum standards. In TRCA’s jurisdiction, many municipalities have adopted or proposed policies for the protection of wetlands beyond just PSWs. 197 Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 Regulation The only regulation for wetlands in Ontario is the section 28 regulation under the Conservation Authorities (CA) Act. TRCA’s section 28 regulation (Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended) applies to all wetlands regardless of provincial significance or permissions in official plans. It fills the gap for applications that do not require any approvals under the Planning Act. It is also the only enforcement body for the protection of wetlands. The Living City Policies The Living City Policies (LCP) implements TRCA’s roles in the development planning process, the infrastructure planning process and the Regulation. The LCP guides staff in their day-to-day operation, helping to implement the PPS, provincial plans and TRCA’s Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy; the LCP also helps support municipalities’ wetland protection policies. The LCP contains policies that recommend the protection of wetlands under Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. It also contains policies to implement TRCA’s Regulation where development is proposed within Regulated Areas associated with a wetland. Challenges and Opportunities Wetland Identification Not all wetlands have been identified, mapped or evaluated (under OWES). TRCA’s terrestrial inventory and monitoring programs continue to identify wetlands across the jurisdiction. The inventory work also documents the habitat functions of the wetlands including the presence of flora and fauna. These data are entered into TRCA’s GIS mapping databases and are used by TRCA staff in their review role. The information is also available to municipalities and to consultants on request to support their development and infrastructure planning activities. In addition, TRCA regularly updates our information with data from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Municipally-led planning exercises such as subwatershed studies, Block Plans and Master Environmental Servicing Plans, also offer an opportunity to identify and evaluate wetlands in new urban areas. Under the text of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, a wetland is regulated even if it is not currently mapped. Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands As noted above, municipalities may choose to go beyond the PPS and provincial plans to protect local wetlands in their policies. However, there are often costly legal appeals to these policies when there is no provincial requirement for protection. In the case of linear infrastructure, it is often impossible to avoid impacting wetlands, including PSWs. To deal with the situation where wetlands cannot be protected in-situ, TRCA has been developing a Compensation Protocol for Ecosystem Services. The draft protocol is currently out for consultation; however, staff has piloted the draft protocol with willing municipalities and proponents where unavoidable losses of natural features have occurred. Non-provincially significant wetlands are usually small and have less complex ecosystem functions than PSWs. TRCA has expertise and experience in being able to recreate/restore wetlands elsewhere if they cannot be protected in-situ. Some municipalities have or are considering compensation policies in their planning documents for non-provincially significant features. 198 The Province of Ontario’s draft Wetland Conservation Strategy has identified that in parts of Ontario where wetland losses have been the greatest, that perhaps, all wetlands should be protected. The draft Strategy also presents compensation/offsetting as something to be explored. Wetland Hydrology (Water Balance) Wetlands and their ecological functions are very much defined by each of their unique hydrologic regimes. For example, hydrology is one of the main factors influencing whether or not amphibians are able to use a wetland to breed. Truly protecting a wetland goes beyond just setting aside the land and providing a buffer. Protecting the hydrologic regime or water balance (volume, timing, and duration of water inputs and outputs) is critically important. This can be very challenging when land is urbanized and the amount of stormwater runoff increases dramatically and water quality decreases. It becomes necessary to take measures to match the quantity and quality of water entering the wetland if the wetland is going to continue to function adjacent to development. The LCP contains requirements for a water balance analysis to demonstrate that the hydrology of the feature will be maintained once the development occurs. To assist proponents, TRCA has produced a Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol to provide consistent guidance for proponents where their proposals have the potential to impact wetland features. TRCA is also working on a Risk Evaluation Tool to determine the level of monitoring and evaluation that is required based on the sensitivity of the wetland and the extent of hydrologic change the development is likely to cause. These guidelines and tools have been or are being developed with input from an external stakeholder committee that includes membership from TRCA municipalities, other CAs and the building and consulting industry. TRCA and Credit Valley Conservation have also initiated a research study to better understand when significant adverse impacts from development are likely to occur. Unauthorized Removals or Damage TRCA’s Enforcement Officers play an important role in the management of natural hazards and features within TRCA watersheds. As noted above, the only regulation for the protection of wetlands comes under section 28 of the CA Act and so too the enforcement and compliance of the regulation. Violation trends within TRCA’s jurisdiction range from minor intrusions into wetland features to major site alterations. Through the investigation process of unauthorized works, it is a challenge to delineate the original feature limits when wetlands that are not mapped or evaluated are damaged or removed outside of the land use planning process. TRCA’s compliance approach is to resolve minor infractions through landowner cooperation and resolve violations by notice through discussions and negotiations for restoration where possible. Currently, there are no Stop Work provisions or Order to Comply provisions within the CA Act. Prosecutions are generally reserved for situations where a negotiated resolution is not possible and the offence is significant in nature. However, these legal proceedings take multiple years to resolve, the costs of which are borne by the CA. Wetland Restoration TRCA has developed strong expertise in the creation, enhancement and ecological restoration of wetlands. Using an understanding of the natural heritage needs in each watershed along with TRCA’s inventory and monitoring data, restoration opportunities have been identified and prioritized. In the last five years, TRCA has restored nearly 100 ha of wetlands in TRCA watersheds, moving us towards the target of 10% wetland cover. 199 FINANCIAL DETAILS The work done at TRCA to protect wetlands is accomplished through established planning and environmental assessment processes and is part of the regular planning and development budgeting process. Funding support for science and research (including the water balance work) is supported through grants from the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, the Toronto Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP), with additional capital funding from York and Peel regions. Credit Valley Conservation has made significant in-kind contributions to this work as well. Funding support for restoration work comes through various municipal capital projects, Peel’s climate change fund, and various grants from external organizations such as Great Lakes Sustainability fund, Toronto RAP, and TD Friends of the Environment Fund, etc. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff supports the direction in the Province’s draft Wetland Conservation Strategy for the protection of all wetlands, in areas where wetland loss has been the greatest, and the use of off-setting or compensation to replace wetlands that are damaged or lost. Staff is awaiting the next round of consultation from the Province on implementation of their Wetland Conservation Strategy and, as needed, will contribute to its implementation. Staff will continue to strengthen partnerships and working relationships with municipalities and other conservation authorities to protect and restore wetlands within TRCA’s watersheds. Report prepared by: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Emails: dlewis@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Emails: dlewis@trca.on.ca Date: June 23, 2017 __________________________________ 200 RES.#A104/17 - EASTERN AND BROADVIEW FLOOD PROTECTION DUE DILIGENCE AND MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Direction to undertake a Due Diligence and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment as co-proponents with Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and the City of Toronto. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Linda Pabst WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and the City of Toronto received approvals from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (DMNP EA) in December 2014; WHEREAS the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project Due Diligence Report was released publically by TWRC, City of Toronto, TRCA and the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC) in October 2016; WHEREAS approximately 8 ha of urban lands north of the elevated Metrolinx railway embankment will remain within the Regulatory Floodplain following implementation of the DMNP EA; WHEREAS the City of Toronto and TWRC have requested that TRCA lead a Due Diligence and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study, which will be undertaken to identify a flood protection solution to remove the remaining flood risk to these 8 ha of urban land north of the elevated Metrolinx railway embankment; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a Delivery Agreement with TWRC to undertake the Due Diligence and Class EA studies; THAT TRCA staff be directed to establish a Project Team consisting of staff from the co-proponent agencies, throughout the Stage 1 - Due Diligence and potentially, the Stage 2 - Class EA processes; THAT the Project Team present the results of the Stage 1 - Due Diligence Study to the Port Lands Executive Steering Committee to seek direction to proceed with the Stage 2 - Class EA portion of the Project; THAT authorized officials and staff be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing of agreements, amendments or other legal documents deemed necessary to undertake the Project; THAT TRCA participation be subject to funding being available from the City of Toronto via a Delivery Agreement between TRCA and TWRC; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back to the Authority with the results of the Stage 1 – Due Diligence and Stage – 2 Class EA phases of the Project. CARRIED 201 BACKGROUND The Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Environmental Assessment received approvals from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change in December 2014. The DMNP EA was completed by TRCA on behalf of and in cooperation with TWRC and the City of Toronto. Currently, 290 ha of land are at risk due to flooding from the Don River in the Port Lands and South Riverdale communities (Attachment 1) and, as a result, are currently subject to restrictions on development and intensification under provincial policy. The DMNP calls for the creation of two new naturalized river valley sections in addition to modifications to the existing Keating Channel, which together will result in the removal of flood risk to approximately 240 ha of land within the Port Lands area and unlock the potential for development. Following full implementation of the DMNP, the Keating Channel, lower Don River Channel and the new naturalized river valleys will still be subject to riverine flooding as per the design. However, a small section of urban land approximately 7-8 ha will remain under flood risk following completion of the DMNP works (Attachment 2). These lands, which are considered as being within the “area of influence” of the Unilever Precinct, are located to the north of the Metrolinx-owned elevated railway embankment, on the east side of the Don River. In 2013, the City of Toronto initiated a Municipal Class EA for the Port Lands (excluding the Lower Don Lands) and south of Eastern Avenue area to establish the necessary infrastructure to support redevelopment. A critical piece of infrastructure identified through the Class EA was an extension of Broadview Avenue south from its current terminus at Eastern Avenue/Sunlight Park Road into and through the Port Lands. The preferred design would cross the existing elevated Metrolinx railway embankment (Attachment 2) with a new underpass structure and in doing so introduce a new pathway for flooding southward into the Unilever Precinct Area. The formal submission of the DMNP EA also preceded the resolution and approval of several key transit and infrastructure project concepts planned for the areas north of the railway embankment, including the TTC Subway Relief Line Station planned for the intersection at Eastern Avenue and the proposed extension of Broadview Avenue. To address these concerns, TRCA undertook preliminary feasibility modeling runs in 2016 to test whether a flood protection solution, on the north side of the railway embankment and east of the river, could be built such that the remaining flood risk could be removed to lands north of the embankment without significant increases in flood risk elsewhere. Results from this exercise indicated that a structure installed on the east side of the Don Valley Parkway, between the Eastern Avenue fly-over and elevated railway embankment, could be used to address flooding to these remaining 7-8 ha of flood vulnerable urban lands. However, it was also noted that, due to the number of concurrent or future development projects and the presence of extensive infrastructure within the project area (e.g., pipelines, sewer lines, etc.), the technical challenges of integrating such a structure are considerable. 202 RATIONALE The implementation of a flood protection solution that would mitigate flood risk to lands north of the railway embankment will allow for the enhancement and redevelopment of a key piece of Toronto’s eastern waterfront. Based on the current and future land uses planned for the area, the provision of a flood protection solution will remove flood risk for landowners and better facilitate a number of important infrastructure projects, including the proposed subway station at Eastern and Broadview in support of the TTC Subway Relief Line and the proposed SmartTrack station to service the East Harbour Precinct lands. Together these two stations will form a new transit “hub” for the area. The removal of the flood risk north of the Metrolinx railway embankment would also facilitate grading works for the proposed Broadview Avenue extension under the railway embankment into the East Harbour Precinct lands. At Toronto City Council Meeting #27, held on March 28, 2017, the Planning and Growth Management Committee Report PG18.6 was adopted, in part, as follows: The Deputy City Manager, Cluster B, be directed to commence, together with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and TWRC, the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Recommendation 4). Subject to approval of Recommendation 4, the Deputy City Manager & Chief Financial Officer be directed to create a capital sub-project, the “Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class Environmental Assessment”, with 2017 cash flows of $2.0 million, funded from development charges from Reserve Fund XR2120 ($1.8 million) and $0.200 million in approved funding from the Waterfront Revitalization Initiatives 2017-2026 Capital Budget and Plan – CWR003-18 ($0.130 million) and CWR003-21 ($0.070 million) – resulting in a $1.8 million net increase in the Budget Committee recommended Waterfront Revitalization budget (Recommendation 5). Based on the above and in consultation with the MOECC and TRCA’s project partners, the City of Toronto and TWRC, as well as area stakeholders, it is recommended that the Due Diligence Study and Municipal Class EA be undertaken in order to resolve the remaining flood risk north of the railway embankment. FINANCIAL DETAILS The creation of a sub-project within the Waterfront Revitalization Initiatives 2017-2026 Capital Budget and Plan has been recommended in order to cover the full cost of the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class EA. Based on preliminary cost estimates prepared by TRCA staff, it is estimated that 2017 and 2018 cash flows of $2.0 million will be required to fully fund the project. The proposed Class EA will be separate from the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure project that is included in the City of Toronto’s 2017-2026 Capital Budget and Plan. Funding will be tracked through a series of 191-70 accounts. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA, TWRC and the City of Toronto will work as co-proponents to identify a viable flood protection solution for the area north of the railway embankment. The project will consist of a Two Stage process: a) Stage 1: Due Diligence stage that will follow Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process, minus the public engagement elements of the study to confirm that a viable alternative can be established; and 203 b) Stage 2: Undertaking the formal Municipal Class EA process if directed to proceed by the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) – it will be reconfirmed whether a Schedule B or C Class EA is required at this time. The above-mentioned high level work plan was prepared in conjunction with the project co-proponents. Stage 1 will involve the definition of the project problem or opportunity and will identify a high level list of alternative solutions. The high level screening process will produce a short-list of alternatives that can meet the project objective of removing the risk of flooding to urban lands north of the Metrolinx railway embankment. The remaining short-list of options will be further refined including the development of details as to how the remaining alternatives will be integrated with existing and future infrastructure, land uses and other considerations. These refined alternatives will then be evaluated based on, but not limited to, construction and maintenance costs, their ability to integrate with existing infrastructure, and their resulting flood plain policy implications. A preliminary preferred alternative will be selected as a result of the evaluation results. The details of the preliminary preferred alternative will be presented to the Port Lands ESC seeking direction as to whether the Project proceeds to the Stage 2 – Class EA. If not approved, the work completed to date will be consolidated by the Project Management and Consultant Teams into a single, stand-alone Due Diligence Report, thus concluding the project. If however, the ESC is satisfied with the outcomes to date, the Project Management Team will proceed to the Stage 2 – Class EA phase. This will involve the consolidation of all technical studies and documentation completed during Stage 1 to form the basis of Phases I and II of the Municipal Class EA process. Formal consultation and stakeholder engagement sessions will be organized as per Municipal Class EA requirements with the release of the Notice of Commencement. Through the engagement process, new alternatives may be suggested and evaluated, requiring updates to the work completed to date. Following conclusion of public engagement, and assuming no significant concerns or issues have been raised, the project will proceed towards the completion of the Municipal Class EA by confirming the appropriate Municipal Class EA Schedule (B or C) and issuing a Notice of Completion, thus notifying agencies and the public of their opportunity to review the final EA. For the above-mentioned works, TRCA will require the support of several consultant teams in order to fulfill the requirements of the EA planning and design process. Three consultant teams will lead the implementation and management of the required services and will coordinate with each other in order to 1) characterize the environmental, geotechnical and hydrogeological subsurface conditions of the project area; 2) carry-out hydraulic modeling and design services of the various flood protection solutions under consideration; and 3) provide planning and engineering support in the development of the Due Diligence and Class EA. Report prepared by: Corey Wells, extension 5233 Emails: cwells@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion@trca.on.ca Date: May 19, 2017 Attachments: 2 204 Attachment 1 The extent of flood risk as it currently exists within the Port Lands and South Riverdale areas (blue shaded area) 205 Attachment 2 Hydraulic model results showing the 7-8 hectares of urban land bounded by the DVP to the west, the Metrolinx elevated railway emankment to the south, and Eastern Avenue to the north that will remain under flood risk following full implementation of the DMNP EA. The extent of flooding shown here is under a Hurricane Hazel level event. __________________________________ 206 RES.#A105/17 - BLACK CREEK RAVINE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION FEASIBILITY Potential for an active transportation connection between Shoreham Drive and Steeles Avenue West along land owned and managed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) take a leadership role in conducting a trail planning feasibility study for the Black Creek Ravine lands area, subject to availability of funding; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA work with the City of Toronto, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, York University, Metrolinx and other appropriate land owners and managers in the study area to develop a trail plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Committee Meeting #9/16, held on November 4, 2016, Resolution #B113/16 was approved as follows: THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be requested to conduct a study and report back by April 2017 to determine the potential of installing a bike path along Black Creek from Shoreham Drive to Steeles Avenue West on lands owned and managed by TRCA. TRCA staff conducted a series of meetings and sites visits to investigate the potential of connecting the existing Black Creek trail system from Shoreham Drive to Steeles Avenue West. This preliminary investigation indicated that there is potential for a trail between Shoreham Drive and Steeles Avenue West, and that the best option is to utilize the existing pathway within the Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) complex, as the option avoids long span crossings of the Black Creek floodplain and minimizes costs to build and maintain additional infrastructure. Further technical studies and consultation with project partners and the public are necessary to more fully determine the most appropriate trail alignment, design and costing, as well as to better integrate this trail section with other active and non-active transportation routes in the area. TRCA staff included additional lands and landowners in the study area in order to analyze more options and determine the best active transportation connection. These lands include: BCPV North Black Creek Parklands (just south of Shoreham Drive, in the vicinity of TRCA Head Office Project) Black Creek Community Farm City of Toronto road and sidewalk networks City of Vaughan road and sidewalk networks York University between BCPV and Pioneer Village TTC Station Highway 407 TTC Station and surrounding lands 207 TRCA staff has started to contact the landowners of these properties to discuss the potential to enhance the trail system in the vicinity of the Black Creek Ravine. Increasing connectivity to and from public transit is essential to the success of this trail connection project; therefore, York University Development Corporation was informed of TRCA’s interest in increasing connectivity from the Black Creek Ravine and BCPV to the TTC Pioneer Village Station. Lands owned by York University are essential to providing increased connectivity in the area. TRCA staff also met with staff members from the Black Creek Community Farm to discuss their goals and objectives and determine potential trail connections in and around their leased lands. There are several complex issues that will need to be resolved as a part of a more detailed trail planning process. At this stage, the largest challenge to successfully achieving this connection is the ability to appropriately separate the trail from the operation of BCPV as a paid use facility. Further discussions regarding the operational aspects of BCPV and/or management agreement will need to take place in order to determine whether there is a practical and cost efficient solution to maintaining BCPV as a paid facility while still permitting members of the public to freely access the ravine trail system. Another distinctive issue is the difficulty of providing suitable access in and out of the ravine system. There are only two potential access points in and out of the ravine once north of Shoreham Drive due to the steep slopes on the west side and BCPV on the east. Other issues identified during preliminary scoping for trail connectivity in the area include: safe access underneath Jane Street/Steeles Avenue; safety and security of trail users; regular flooding of these ravine lands; trail design guidelines; difficult terrain in some areas; quality of existing pathway and subsurface conditions; constructability of pedestrian river crossings; approval for railway underpass; ongoing lease of TRCA land to Black Creek Community Farm. Conceptual Trail Alignment TRCA staff considered these issues and developed a conceptual trail alignment utilizing land within and surrounding Black Creek. The primary trail alignment utilizes a preexisting service pathway that stretches from the end of the existing City of Toronto trail system at the south end of the Black Creek complex to Black Creek Pioneer Village North, via a tunnel underneath Jane Street and Steeles Avenue. The entirety of this mostly flat service road follows the western boundary of BCPV and the east side of the ravine. A mid-block trail connection was also included in the concept as there was an interest in TRCA’s initial meetings and scoping sessions to include increased public connectivity across the ravine from Jane Street to Black Creek TTC Station. This east/west path requires two parts, both of which connect to the main north/south trail identified above. The first part connects a multi-use pathway to a preexisting sidewalk constructed by the City of Toronto to connect Jane Street to a Toronto Community Housing Complex and a city park. The pathway then flows around the Black Creek Community Farm and eventually connects to a single pedestrian bridge proposed to be constructed over the Black Creek Ravine and connecting in to the main trail. Modifications to the western side of the ravine slope are necessary in order to construct a stable and accessible west pathway in and out of the ravine lands. An additional connection could be constructed from Jane Street and Hullmar Drive to the proposed bridge; however, this will require further consultation 208 and collaboration with Black Creek Community Farm. The second part of the east/west path connects the northern terminus of the existing Black Creek Trail to BCPV and then heads east past Murrary Ross Parkway connecting to preexisting multi-use pathways constructed by York University, and eventually ending at Pioneer Village Station. A map of the trail concept has been included in Attachment 1. Potential Project Partners TRCA’s municipal and regional partners support trail planning for active transportation, and are also pursuing strategies that include trails and paths in the vicinity of the Black Creek Ravine: City of Toronto One of Mayor John Tory’s key initiatives is Vision Zero: Toronto’s Road Safety Plan, which aims to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on city streets by making walking and cycling safer. This Plan aligns well with TRCA’s trail objectives of providing active transportation routes away from roads. The City of Toronto Bike Plan: Shifting Gears is Toronto’s plan to “shift gears towards a more bike friendly city,” and sets out principles, objectives and recommendations to guide the development and maintenance of cycling infrastructure and programs. One of the primary objectives for the bikeway network is to connect it with the networks in adjacent municipalities. The Bike Plan includes a proposed one kilometre signed cycling route along Shoreham Drive and Murray Ross Parkway, connecting the Black Creek Trail to a proposed off-road bicycle path on Steeles Avenue. In Toronto’s Cycling Network Ten Year Plan, Shoreham Drive is shown as a location for a future bike lane/cycle tracks, and Jane Street is shown as a corridor “where future study may be considered as part of the Cycling Network Plan 2 Year Review Report”. York Region The Regional Municipality of York Transportation Master Plan intends to integrate active transportation in urban areas. One element of this objective is “promot[ing] the development of trails that support greater levels of active transportation that complement the on-road cycling and pedestrian networks, particularly those that connect urban areas”. One of the key Regional trail spines identified in the Plan is an “east-west trail system that would utilize the Hydro corridor in southern York Region”. One section of this hydro corridor is located between the Black Creek Pioneer Village North property and the Highway 407 subway station. City of Vaughan The Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 620 lands in Vaughan are “to become a mixed use area, with a variety of retail, office and residential uses, as well as other community uses”. The OPA specifies that developments seeking height and/or density above what is outlined may be permitted by the City under Section 37 of the Planning Act, “in exchange for community facilities and public open space features” including pedestrian and/or bike trails, “within the Amendment Area, over and above those required by this Plan, or funds for the provision of such facilities and features”. The Vaughan 20-year Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Study was developed to guide the expansion of a network of pedestrian and cycling facilities, including a recreational trail system. The Jane Street and Steeles Avenue West intersection is designated as a “Gateway,” and Jane Street is marked as a “Class 2 Bike Lane – Community Bike Lane” with “Formal pavement marking and signing (CL – WIDENING)”. Also, the Steeles West Urban Design Guidelines + Streetscape Plan outlines a proposed off-road cycle track and pedestrian sidewalk along the north side of Steeles Avenue. 209 Other organizations and TRCA partners also support trails and active transportation in the area: York University York University is planning significant changes to the Keele Campus and its surrounding area. In the precincts adjacent to the Black Creek valley, the York University Secondary Plan features new pedestrian and bicycle connections between the University, the surrounding areas, and natural heritage features and systems, as well as a pedestrian oriented greenway along The Pond Road. The Steeles West Precinct is intended to be largely developed as a high-density transit-supportive mixed-use corridor, focused on the Pioneer Village Station. The Keele Campus Master Plan promotes “Pedestrians First at York University,” and “Greening York University.” The “Pedestrians First” lens aims to “foster a culture of active transportation within the campus”, and outlines plans for a shared-use greenway favouring cyclists and pedestrians on the Ring Road, linking to regional trails. The “Greening” lens includes considerations for trails in the arboretum along The Pond Road (just east of the Black Creek valley) and near stormwater management ponds, and also includes the Black Creek/Hoover Creek Valley Corridor as a Priority Restoration Area. Black Creek Community Farm Black Creek Community Farm has an existing (but tabled) plan to construct a bridge at the north east corner of the property to a service trail at Black Creek Pioneer Village on the other side of the creek. The Farm has developed a trail around the outer perimeter of the property, from the northeast corner to the southeast corner, where there is an excellent opportunity for an interpretive lookout. Lastly, a Black Creek Trail Plan would support existing TRCA initiatives as follows: Black Creek Pioneer Village One objective of the BCPV Strategic Plan is to be visited by more people more often. To achieve this, the BCPV vision recommends “the creation of a more interactive experience for visitors,” through initiatives including a re-imagined streetscape and entranceway. Part of the rationale for the BCPV vision is the Pioneer Village Station (scheduled to open in 2017), which will make BCPV more accessible while providing promotion for the site. Currently the pedestrian/cycling route from the Pioneer Village Station to BCPV is approximately 950 metres along formal paths, or approximately 750 metres by cutting across fields and/or parking lots. Formalization of the faster route with trails/paths would make it safer and more accessible, thus improving the experience for BCPV visitors coming from Pioneer Village Station, and enriching the proposed re-imagined streetscape and entranceway. The Black Creek Pioneer Village North Lands Master Plan proposes trails to “afford public access within the valley corridor, providing opportunities for nature appreciation and interpretation of the natural landscape and Black Creek as well as access to facilitate monitoring of the success of reforestation and environmental enhancement initiatives”. Wayfinding Signage Plan from Pioneer Village Station to Black Creek Pioneer Village TRCA and Black Creek Pioneer Village staff is developing a wayfinding sign plan for the new Pioneer Village TTC Station. Based on discussion with TTC, there will be in-station signage that directs riders to Black Creek Pioneer Village. These signs will be strategically placed in the station and their spots will be directed by the TTC staff. 210 In addition to these signs, TRCA is putting together a wayfinding sign plan to provide direction along Steeles Avenue to Murray Ross Parkway, both on the north and south sides. Similar signs will also be placed along the existing and proposed multi-use trails on York University lands. These signs will vary in content and size depending on where they are placed. BCPV Parking Lot Infrastructure Enhancement Plan TRCA is in the process of developing a plan to optimize BCPV’s parking lot through a series of site improvements that will address the following: site and user safety; accessibility and wayfinding; ease of use and site configuration; sustainability, landscape aesthetics and promotion. These enhancements will improve BCPV’s parking lot by remediating site challenges and optimizing existing infrastructure. As a portion of the parking lot has been identified as a potential trail connection from BCPV to Black Creek Station, TRCA staff will be able to coordinate efforts to achieve shared goals and reduce costs. TRCA Strategic Plan In 2013, TRCA introduced a strategic plan covering a 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The plan emphasizes TRCA’s commitment to safeguarding and enhancing the health and well-being of the residents of the Toronto region through the protection and restoration of the natural environment and the fundamental ecological services our environment provides. TRCA developed 12 strategies that guide its activities from 2013-2022. The strategies are presented in two categories: Leadership Strategies that move TRCA toward The Living City vision; and, Enabling Strategies that build collective capacity for TRCA to make significant, positive impacts. The development of trails within the Black Creek Ravine falls within several Leadership Strategies, most notably “Rethink greenspace to maximize its value”, where all objectives are met: 1) A network of greenspace and green infrastructure that weaves through every community to connect a healthy and resilient landscape. 2) More people engaging with nature more often. 3) Improved protection of Toronto region’s natural systems. These objectives will be achieved through the following actions by TRCA: 1) Work with TRCA’s partners to acquire, design and distribute greenspace and green infrastructure, both natural (e.g., ravines, meadows, wetlands) and created (e.g., urban forest, agriculture and community gardens, greenroofs) to all communities in an equitable manner, directing ecosystem services to the areas where the need is greatest. 2) Partner with municipalities, neighbouring conservation authorities and the federal government (e.g., Rouge National Urban Park) to connect and promote a regional active transportation network that facilitates physical activity and reduces air pollution while creating key linkages between natural areas. 3) Develop infrastructure and tools such as, transit access and smart-technology applications that improve access to and increase use of greenspace, particularly for marginalized populations and new Canadians. 211 4) Deliver experiences and programs that encourage life-long engagement and stewardship of urban nature among a more diverse range of people. Humber River Watershed Plan The Humber River watershed plan, Pathways to a Healthy Humber, recommends recognizing “the distinctive heritage of the Humber through an enhanced regional open space system”. The plan’s nature-based recreation objectives are: “Incorporate greenspace in all urban and rural developments and create an accessible and connected greenspace system that is compatible with ecological and cultural integrity;” and “Develop a system of inter-regional trails and local and regional nature-based recreation, education and tourism destinations within the greenspace system. The Black Creek subwatershed is identified as having opportunities to complete missing links in the trail system and create new trails along hydro corridors. Black Creek Neighbourhood Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan (SNAP) Black Creek is one of Toronto’s 31 Neighbourhood Improvement Areas, and a TRCA SNAP neighbourhood. One of the many goals of the Black Creek SNAP is to enhance natural areas such as local parks for the community to enjoy. Currently, there is very little greenspace per capita for residents of the Black Creek neighbourhood, and the existing greenspace (largely in the Black Creek valley) is hard to access, disconnected, perceived to be unsafe and underutilized. TRCA’s New Head Office Plans for TRCA’s new head office at 5 Shoreham Drive aim to strengthen the connection between York University, TRCA and the Black Creek valley, including a public ground floor that connects to the ravine landscape. New and improved trails in the Black Creek area would provide active transportation opportunities for staff, as well as visiting partners and members of the public. RATIONALE Several major changes including the opening of the Spadina Subway Extension, Secondary Development Plans, TRCA’s new head office project, and a reimagining of BCPV warrant a rethinking of the active transportation and community trail connections in the vicinity of the Black Creek ravine. Numerous TRCA partners support trail planning for active transportation, and are also pursuing strategies for connected community trails and paths in the vicinity of the Black Creek Ravine including: City of Toronto Regional Municipality of York City of Vaughan York University Further technical studies, collaboration with project partners and public consultation is necessary to determine the most appropriate trail alignment and design, active transportation routes to major transit hubs, and to better integrate the ravine system in to the community. The City of Toronto and York University are supportive of TRCA’s plans to lead this trail planning feasibility study. TRCA will also work with the City of Vaughan and the Regional Municipality of York to develop a concept and trail alignment for the ravine lands north of Steeles Avenue. 212 FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA requires approximately $400,000 to complete a trail planning feasibility study for the Black Creek Ravine and associated lands identified in this report. TRCA is actively investigating funding sources for this work, as part of the capital budget process. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will develop a trail planning feasibility study in collaboration with the City of Toronto, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, York University and other partners. The study will review proposed multi-use trail options, select a preferred route, develop new options for community trail connections, and develop preliminary planning, design and construction cost estimates. Report prepared by: Adam Dembe, extension 5939, Colleen Bain 647-746-7447 Emails: adembe@trca.on.ca, cbain@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Adam Dembe, extension 5939, Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204 Emails: adembe@trca.on.ca, dcheriton@trca.on.ca Date: May 4, 2017 Attachments: 1 213 Attachment 1 214 RES.#A106/17 - RENAMING OF A TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ASSET Proposed Name Change of the Claremont Field Centre to the Claremont Nature Centre. Approval to officially rename the “Claremont Field Centre”, a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority facility in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, to the “Claremont Nature Centre”. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Matt Mahoney THAT the Claremont Field Centre, a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned and operated education facility located in the City of Pickering, be officially renamed the “Claremont Nature Centre”; AND FURTHER THAT facility and directional signage, along with marketing and program materials, be updated to reflect the name change. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/15, held on November 27, 2015, Resolution #A227/15 was approved, in part, as follows: …THAT TRCA education centres be redeveloped into community engagement centres with an emphasis on local participation in program development and delivery;… RATIONALE Claremont Field Centre is the first of TRCA’s three field centres to start the transition to community engagement centres. The proposed name change from Claremont Field Centre to Claremont Nature Centre will help TRCA to re-position the site as a community engagement centre that supports a variety of programs in the community. TRCA’s vision for the Claremont Nature Centre and its associated 129 hectares (318 acres) of conservation lands expands its existing use as an overnight destination for school groups into a “community hub” for all to use. The proposed name is in keeping with TRCA’s policy for Naming of TRCA Assets as per the following: The naming of TRCA assets may contain any or all of the following: The name of major individual or corporate/public sector organization; The name of an individual prominent in the environmental or conservation community; A relevant historical name associated with the geographic area or community; The name of a strategic initiative, a citizen's group or other partnership of TRCA; Other names that may have significant for a specific site and area. The renaming of the Claremont Field Centre to the Claremont Nature Centre formally announces the transformation of the site to a community engagement centre to the public. The name change was determined by understanding the needs of local partners and community members and reflects the unique nature of the site and facility. 215 In addition to the name change, a number of facility upgrades designed to support community use of the site are also in place. Funding has been secured through a Canada 150 grant, Durham Region and the Ministry of Employment and Social Development Canada to help make Claremont inclusive and barrier free. Upgrades to the facility include an expanded parking area, accessible parking spaces, an educational trail to connect the front parking to the rear valley trails, outdoor classroom and learnings spaces and an indoor multipurpose room. FINANCIAL DETAILS Provision for sign replacement costs of $8,000 is available in Claremont Field Centre operating account 353-01. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Marketing staff will finalize the entrance sign design and contract a sign company for fabrication and installation. Program and marketing material will be updated and replaced as part of the normal replacement cycle. Report prepared by: Natalie Harder, 416-891-0518 Emails: nharder@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Natalie Harder, extension 416-891-0518 Emails: nharder@trca.on.ca Date: May 23, 2017 ______________________________ 216 RES.#A107/17 - VENDORS OF RECORD FOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS FOR OPERATING SEASON 2017 TO 2018 Contract #10004229. Award of Contract #10004229 for the supply of on-call mechanical and electrical related goods and services from June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the owner of several properties across the jurisdiction that require on-call mechanical and electrical services; AND WHEREAS in March 2017, TRCA solicited quotations through a publicly advertised process and evaluated the quotations based on experience, certifications, in good standing with the Workplace Safety Insurance Board (WSIB) and references; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendors of Record (VOR) arrangement with nine electrical contractors and eight mechanical contractors for the supply of on-call services less than $10,000 per occurrence for the 2017 to 2018 operating season; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take necessary action to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA requires services, repairs and ongoing maintenance to various TRCA public use and rental facilities across its jurisdiction. By establishing a VOR list for on-call and emergency electrical and mechanical services, vendors are authorized to provide these services for a defined period of time and with fixed pricing. Staff may contact a vendor on the list to provide mechanical or electrical related goods and services with a value up to $10,000 per occurrence. On-call services above the $10,000 threshold are subject to TRCA’s Purchasing Policy and procurement procedures. Vendors will be required to provide all labour, materials, equipment and supervision necessary to complete the work in accordance with applicable laws, codes, standards, terms and conditions of the Vendors of Record Agreement. RATIONALE Request for Quotation (RFQ) for Contract #10004229 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on March 23, 2017. Suppliers were advised that they would be evaluated on the following criteria: Completeness of submission; Ability to meet current Occupational Health and Safety standards; Industry certifications and association memberships; and Company profile, services offered and experience with HVAC, plumbing, refrigeration, natural gas, swimming pool, general electrical and high voltage services. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the quotations on April 7, 2016. Members of the selection committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Aaron D’Souza, Natalie Racette and Lisa Moore) reviewed the quotations and evaluated them based on the above technical requirements 217 The results of the evaluation are as follows: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS Vendor Technical (out of 100) Plan Group 98 TilTran Power Services 97 Rand Electric 95 Electric Group Ltd. 94 Ainsworth Inc. 91 Nezz Electric 87 BEC Electric 84 R.A. Graham Electrical 84 Bolton Electric 65 MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS Vendor Technical (out of 100) Plan Group 98 Glen the Plumber 97 Ontario Air Systems Ltd. 97 MSB Mechanical 96 Norline Plumbing and Mechanical Ltd. 95 Black Creek Mechanical Ltd. 93 LTK Mechanical Services Inc. 93 TBR Mechanical Electrical 89 Suppliers were also required to submit a Schedule of Rates (Attachment 1) for either on-call mechanical or electrical services. The Schedule of Rates was comprised of rates for regular work hours (Monday – Friday 8:00am to 4:30pm), overtime/emergency hours (evenings and weekends) and vehicle mileage (per kilometre). Through the evaluation process, it was determined that all of the vendors meet TRCA’s requirements for experience, qualifications, and health and safety. Staff further confirmed this through reference checks for each vendor. While Bolton Electric’s submission scored lower than the other submissions, their reference check, familiarity with a number of TRCA facilities, and past performance confirmed that they are able to provide quality services in a timely manner. The extent of the VOR list will ensure that a vendor will be available to provide goods and services in short order and the geographical distribution of the vendors will reduce the cost of mileage. Staff will be provided all of the information to be able to contact a vendor based on their experience/qualifications, geographical location, cost or a combination of the three. Therefore, staff recommends Contract #10004229 be awarded to all of the vendors listed above, they being the vendors that best meet TRCA’s requirements. 218 FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of this contract is estimated to be $700,000 based on a review of previous work orders completed in 2016. An increase or decrease in workload will have an impact on the amount of this contract. All of the vendors understand the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. The services will be provided on an “as required” basis with no minimum hours guaranteed. Funds required for the contract are identified in TRCA’s 2017 and 2018 capital and operating budgets. Report prepared by: Lisa Moore, extension 5846 Emails: lmoore@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Lisa Moore, extension 5846 or Aaron D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: lmoore@trca.on.ca, adjsouza@trca.on.ca Date: May 29, 2017 Attachments: 1 219 At t a c h m e n t 1 BI D D E R S La b o u r : ** Ho u r l y Ra t e ** Re g u l a r Ti m e Mo n d a y – Fr i d a y 8: 0 0 A M – 4: 3 0 P M Re s p o n s e wi t h i n 24 ho u r s La b o u r : ** Ho u r l y Ra t e ** Ov e r t i m e / E m e r g e n c y Ho u r s Mo n d a y – Fr i d a y 4: 3 0 P M –8 : 0 0 A M La b o u r : ** Ho u r l y Ra t e ** Ov e r t i m e / E m e r g e n c y Ho u r s Al l da y Sa t u r d a y La b o u r : ** Ho u r l y Ra t e ** Ov e r t i m e / E m e r g e n c y Ho u r s Al l da y Su n d a y Travel time/vehicle (per km) Ai n s w o r t h I n c . $9 5 . 0 0 $ 1 9 5 . 0 0 $ 1 9 5 . 0 0 $ 1 9 5 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 0 BE C E l e c t r i c $1 0 5 . 0 0 $ 1 5 7 . 5 0 $ 1 5 7 . 5 0 $ 1 5 7 . 5 0 $ 0 . 6 0 Bo l t o n E l e c t r i c $7 8 . 0 0 $ 1 1 7 . 0 0 $ 1 1 7 . 0 0 $ 1 1 7 . 0 0 $ 0 . 4 0 El e c t r i c G r o u p L t d . $1 1 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 5 . 0 0 $ 1 9 5 . 0 0 $ 1 9 5 . 0 0 $ 0 . 8 5 Ne z z E l e c t r i c $8 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 7 0 Pl a n G r o u p $9 5 . 0 0 $ 1 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 7 0 R. A . G r a h a m El e c t r i c a l $8 0 . 0 0 $ 1 4 9 . 0 0 $ 1 4 9 . 0 0 $ 1 4 9 . 0 0 $ 0 . 6 0 Ra n d E l e c t r i c $9 2 . 0 0 $ 1 3 8 . 0 0 $ 1 3 8 . 0 0 $ 1 8 4 . 0 0 $ 1 . 1 5 Ti l T r a n P o w e r Se r v i c e s $9 8 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 0 9 Co n t r a c t No . 10 0 0 4 2 2 9 Ve n d o r of Re c o r d fo r Me c h a n i c a l an d El e c t r i c a l Se r v i c e s ON CA L L SE R V I C E S FO R EL E C T R I C A L CO N T R A C T O R S 22 0 At t a c h m e n t 1 BI D D E R S La b o u r : ** Ho u r l y Ra t e ** Re g u l a r Ti m e Mo n d a y – Fr i d a y 8: 0 0 A M – 4: 3 0 P M Re s p o n s e wi t h i n 24 ho u r s La b o u r : ** Ho u r l y Ra t e ** Ov e r t i m e / E m e r g e n c y Ho u r s Mo n d a y – Fr i d a y 4: 3 0 P M –8 : 0 0 A M La b o u r : ** Ho u r l y Ra t e ** Ov e r t i m e / E m e r g e n c y Ho u r s Al l da y Sa t u r d a y La b o u r : ** Ho u r l y Ra t e ** Ov e r t i m e / E m e r g e n c y Ho u r s Al l da y Su n d a y Charge for travel time/vehicle (per km) Bl a c k C r e e k Me c h a n i c a l $9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 3 5 . 0 0 $ 1 3 5 . 0 0 $ 1 3 5 . 0 0 $ 0 . 3 0 Gl e n t h e P l u m b e r $8 2 . 5 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 1 6 5 . 0 0 $ 0 . 6 5 LT K M e c h a n i c a l $9 4 . 3 5 $ 1 4 2 . 5 0 $ 1 4 2 . 5 0 $ 1 4 2 . 5 0 $ 1 . 2 5 MS B M e c h a n i c a l $9 2 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 1 . 0 0 No r l i n e P l u m b i n g $1 2 5 . 0 0 $ 1 8 7 . 5 0 $ 1 8 7 . 5 0 $ 1 8 7 . 5 0 $ 0 . 8 5 On t a r i o A i r Sy s t e m s L t d . $1 2 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 8 . 0 0 $ 1 6 8 . 0 0 $ 1 6 8 . 0 0 $ 0 . 0 0 Pl a n G r o u p $9 5 . 0 0 $ 1 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 9 0 . 0 0 $ 0 . 7 0 TB R M e c h a n i c a l $9 0 . 0 0 $ 1 3 5 . 0 0 $ 1 3 5 . 0 0 $ 1 3 5 . 0 0 $ 0 . 5 2 ON CA L L SE R V I C E S FO R ME C H A N I C A L CO N T R A C T O R S Co n t r a c t No . 10 0 0 4 2 2 9 Ve n d o r of Re c o r d fo r Me c h a n i c a l an d El e c t r i c a l Se r v i c e s 22 1 RES.#A108/17 - AGGREGATES TO TRCA WORK SITES Vendor of Record. Award of Vendor of Record contracts for the supply and delivery of various aggregate and construction materials to various Toronto and Region Conservation Authority work sites from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of environmental initiatives that require numerous procurements for aggregate materials; AND WHEREAS TRCA issued a Request for Tender for the supply and delivery of various aggregates to TRCA project sites that was evaluated on cost, corporate experience and resources, and reference checks; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendor of Record (VOR) arrangement with a primary and secondary supplier representing the two highest ranked proposals for each aggregate material category, less than $200,000 per occurrence, for a one year period, with an option to extend the contract for an additional period of twelve months to June 30, 2019 as indicated in the contract documents; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded supplier, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted tenders, beginning with the next highest ranked bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA implements numerous environmental projects of varying scale throughout the GTA. The projects highly depend on the utilization of aggregate materials for the site work to progress. These types of projects include the following: waterfront development and remedial shoreline protection, including lakefilling, placement of rip rap, armourstone headlands, groynes and breakwaters; habitat enhancement and regeneration projects, including wetlands, meadows, natural channels, trail development; and bank/slope/channel stabilization projects, including armourstone retaining walls, drainage channels, revetments and buttresses. In previous years, TRCA would undertake multiple procurement processes to source materials for its project requirements. To improve efficiencies and assist staff during the peak construction season, TRCA is establishing a Vendor of Record list for the supply and delivery of various types of aggregate materials. Due to the proximity of project sites to quarry locations, the Vendor of Record process will establish east and west jurisdictions with multiple primary and secondary suppliers for each type of aggregate material up to $200,000 per occurrence. Any material request beyond $200,000 per occurrence will be tendered out as a 222 separate contract. The establishment of this Vendor of Record will help to ensure a vendor is available to deliver quality materials when needed at competitive pricing, while reducing procurement costs. The VOR list will be subject to quarterly reviews in order to confirm that the suppliers are providing an adequate level of service and to update applicable health and safety policies and certificates. RATIONALE Request for Tender documents were publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on May 16, 2017. Tender documents were received by the following 14 bidders: B Town Group; Brock Aggregates; CDR Young Aggregates Inc.; Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd.; Dufferin Aggregates; Glenn Windrem Trucking; J.C. Rock Ltd.; James Dick Construction Limited; Lafarge Aggregates; Nelson Aggregates; Earthco Soil Inc.; Arnts The Landscape Supplier; Miller Paving; and Strada Aggregates. The tender provided specifications for the various types of aggregate materials TRCA requires for its project sites. The materials include various types of granular, armourstone, rip rap, round stone and topsoil. Additional to providing the cost to supply these aggregate materials, the supplier is to specify the source of the aggregate and cost for delivery by tri-axle/flatbed trucking. With numerous project sites spread across TRCA’s jurisdictions, a site location map was provided depicting Yonge Street as the divide between east and west jurisdictions as well as estimated quantities based on prior purchases within the last two years to assist bidders with their competitive pricing. Tender submissions closed on May 30, 2017 and were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee that same day; the unit pricing submitted by each bidder is presented in Attachment 1. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff, reviewed the tender submissions and were evaluated on a weighted scoring system consisting of 50% reasonableness of cost, 30% corporate experience and resources and the remaining 20% on the reference check. Along with unit rates for supply and delivery of aggregate material, bidders were to include company resources, relevant experience, references, quarry locations, and health and safety certificates to ensure TRCA is receiving good value for services. From the evaluation, the highest ranked vendor will be selected as the primary supplier to provide the aggregate materials as needed. If the primary supplier is unable to meet the specifications of the VOR for any reason, a secondary supplier with the second highest ranked evaluation will be called upon. The results of the evaluation is as follows: 223 East District Granular Contract #10004837 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 100 Strada Aggregates 95.5 Miller Paving 92.75 B Town Group 92.75 Arnts; The Landscape Supplier 91 Dufferin Aggregates 89.25 James Dick Construction Limited 83 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 45 Lafarge Aggregates 43 Brock Aggregates 41 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and Strada Aggregates are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and Strada Aggregates as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. West District Granular Contract #10004838 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Strada Aggregates 98.5 Glenn Windrem Trucking 98 Dufferin Aggregates 96.75 James Dick Construction 95 B Town Group 92.75 Brock Aggregates 66 Lafarge Aggregates 49 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 43.5 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Strada Aggregates and Glenn Windrem Trucking are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Strada Aggregates as the primary supplier, and Glenn Windrem Trucking as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. East District Armourstone Contract #10004839 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 95 B Town Group 94 J.C. Rock Ltd. 78 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. 70 Lafarge Aggregates 50 224 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. West District Armourstone Contract #10004841 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 96 B Town Group 95.5 Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. 88 Dufferin Aggregates 85 J.C. Rock Ltd. 79.5 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 50 Lafarge Aggregates 79.2 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements East District Rip-rap Contract #10004842 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 100 B Town Group 94.5 Miller Paving 92 Strada Aggregates 88.5 Dufferin Aggregates 83 J.C. Rock Ltd. 81 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 49 Lafarge Aggregates 44 Brock Aggregates 41 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. 225 West District Rip-rap Contract #10004843 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 100 B Town Group 93 Dufferin Aggregates 92 Strada Aggregates 88.5 J.C. Rock Ltd. 80.5 James Dick Construction 79 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 49 Lafarge Aggregates. 46 Brock Aggregates 41 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. East District Round Stone Contract #10004844 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 100 James Dick Construction 94 Brock Aggregates 41 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and James Dick Construction are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and James Dick Construction as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. West District Round Stone Contract #10004845 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 100 James Dick Construction 94 Brock Aggregates 41 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and James Dick Construction are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and James Dick Construction as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. 226 East District Topsoil Contract #10004926 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Earthco Soil Inc. 97.5 Arnts The Landscape Supplier 96 Glenn Windrem Trucking 75 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Earthco Soil Inc. and Arnts the Landscape Supplier are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Earthco Soil Inc. as the primary supplier, and Arnts the Landscape Supplier as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. West District Topsoil Contract #10004927 BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Earthco Soil Inc. 99 James Dick Construction 76 Glenn Windrem Trucking 72 Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Earthco Soil Inc. and James Dick Construction are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Earthco Soil Inc. as the primary supplier, and James Dick Construction as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. FINANCIAL DETAILS Based upon a review of projects scheduled for implementation during this contract period, the approximate value of the materials is as follows; granular $1,200,000; armourstone $2,400,000; rip rap $1,900,000; topsoil $200,000; and round stone $900,000. An increase and decrease in workload will have an impact on the value of this contract. All suppliers understand both the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. The aggregate will be supplied on an ‘as required’ basis with no minimum quantities guaranteed. Funds for the contract are identified in TRCA’s 2017 and 2018 capital budgets. Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-844-3987 Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Aaron J. D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: ajdsouza@trca.on.ca Date: June 7, 2017 Attachments: 1 227 Attachment 1 BIDDER Granular East Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004837 10-15mm Pea Gravel by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne 19mm Granular A by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 50mm Granular B by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 6.25mm Limestone Screenings by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 19mm Crusher Run Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 50mm Crusher Run Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 19mm Clear Stone Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 50mm Clear Stone Limestone by Tri-axle Truck Dufferin Aggregates $40.32 $26.62 No Bid $21.55 $23.57 $23.57 $33.82 $33.82 C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $43.21 $20.87 $14.97 $23.52 $23.52 $23.52 $27.02 $27.02 Glen Windrem Trucking $32.25 $20.80 $14.80 $19.22 $20.22 $20.22 $26.80 $28.50 Lafarge Canada Inc. $31.15 $27.65 $17.25 $22.38 $23.38 $23.38 $30.65 $30.65 Strada Aggregates Inc. $33.30 $20.80 $18.95 $20.55 $21.55 $21.55 $27.70 $27.70 Miller Paving Limited No Bid No Bid No Bid $20.75 $21.75 $21.75 $26.75 $26.75 B-Town Group No Bid No Bid No Bid $21.80 $22.30 $22.00 $24.90 $24.90 James Dick Construction Limited $34.47 $25.17 $22.87 $20.90 $25.57 $25.57 $35.67 $35.67 Brock Aggregates Inc. $39.00 $26.50 $17.00 $23.75 $26.00 $26.00 $31.50 $31.50 ARNTS The Landscape Supplier $30.50 $22.50 $16.40 $22.71 $23.72 $23.72 $29.92 $29.92 228 BIDDER Granular West Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004838 10-15mm Pea Gravel by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne 19mm Granular A by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 50mm Granular B by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 6.25mm Limestone Screenings by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 19mm Crusher Run Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 50mm Crusher Run Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 19mm Clear Stone Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne 50mm Clear Stone Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne Dufferin Aggregates $36.72 $25.62 No Bid $17.95 $18.85 $18.85 $30.22 $30.22 C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $45.21 $24.37 $18.47 $24.52 $28.02 $28.02 $28.02 $28.02 Glen Windrem Trucking $34.00 $24.45 $18.45 $19.77 $21.77 $21.77 $30.45 $30.45 Lafarge Canada Inc. $27.10 $21.38 $16.60 $21.88 $22.88 $22.88 $30.15 $30.15 Strada Aggregates Inc. $31.40 $21.85 $18.25 $21.00 $22.25 $22.25 $27.90 $27.90 B-Town Group No Bid No Bid No Bid $21.75 $22.00 $22.00 $28.05 $28.25 James Dick Construction Limited $30.82 $21.52 $19.22 $18.90 $22.43 $22.43 $32.53 $32.53 Brock Aggregates Inc. $32.75 $24.00 $17.75 $21.75 $24.25 $24.25 $32.00 $32.00 229 BIDDER Armour Stone East Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004839 1-2 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off-loading with forks Truck /Tonne 2-4 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off-loading with forks Truck /Tonne 3-5 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off- loading with forks Truck /Tonne 5-7 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off- loading with forks Truck /Tonne 6-8 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off- loading with forks Truck /Tonne Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. $70.97 $66.90 $66.90 $66.90 $66.90 Dufferin Aggregates $114.15 $65.15 $60.15 No Bid No Bid C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $58.00 $58.00 $57.95 $57.95 $59.60 Glen Windrem Trucking $62.50 $62.50 $62.50 $61.50 $60.50 Lafarge Canada $60.00 $60.00 $50.00 $50.00 $60.00 B-Town Group $61.00 $59.05 $58.55 $58.05 $58.05 J.C.Rock Ltd. $85.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 230 BIDDER Armour Stone West Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004841 1-2 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off-loading with forks Truck /Tonne 2-4 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off-loading with forks Truck /Tonne 3-5 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off- loading with forks Truck /Tonne 5-7 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off- loading with forks Truck /Tonne 6-8 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off- loading with forks Truck /Tonne Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. $70.00 $66.90 $66.90 $66.90 $66.90 Dufferin Aggregates $111.00 $62.00 $57.00 No Bid No Bid C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $58.00 $58.00 $57.95 $57.95 $59.60 Glen Windrem Trucking $64.50 $64.00 $63.50 $62.00 $60.50 Lafarge Canada $60.00 $60.00 $50.00 $50.00 $60.00 B-Town Group $62.00 $60.08 $59.50 $59.50 $59.50 J.C.Rock Ltd. $85.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 231 BIDDER Rip-Rap & Gabion East Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004842 100-200mm Gabion by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 150-300mm Gabion by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 300-600mm Rip-rap by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 400-800mm Rip- rap by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 800-1000mm Rip-rap by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne Dufferin Aggregates $33.57 $34.57 $51.47 $51.47 No Bid C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $29.52 $31.22 $31.52 $32.52 $33.52 Glen Windrem Trucking $30.25 $31.25 $30.75 $30.75 $32.75 Lafarge Canada $34.00 $34.00 $36.00 $35.00 $35.00 Strada Aggregate No Bid $32.55 No Bid No Bid No Bid Miller Paving Limited $28.90 $28.90 $37.50 No Bid No Bid B-Town Group $33.58 $33.58 $31.65 $31.65 $33.65 James Dick Construction Limited $34.00 $34.00 No Bid No Bid No Bid Brock Aggregates Inc. $41.50 $42.00 $50.00 No Bid No Bid J.C.Rock Ltd. $29.00 $29.00 $30.50 $30.50 $72.00 232 BIDDER Rip-Rap & Gabion West Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004843 100-200mm Gabion by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 150-300mm Gabion by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 300-600mm Rip-rap by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 400-800mm Rip- rap by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 800-1000mm Rip-rap by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne Dufferin Aggregates $29.97 $30.97 $48.42 $48.42 No Bid C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $30.52 $32.22 $32.52 $33.52 $34.52 Glen Windrem Trucking $31.80 $32.00 $32.00 $32.00 $33.00 Lafarge Canada $34.00 $34.00 $34.00 $35.00 $35.00 Strada Aggregate No Bid $32.75 No Bid No Bid No Bid B-Town Group $35.50 $35.50 $35.05 $35.05 $35.05 James Dick Construction Limited $36.95 $36.95 No Bid No Bid No Bid Brock Aggregates Inc. $44.00 No Bid $47.00 No Bid No Bid J.C.Rock Ltd. $31.00 $31.00 $32.50 $32.50 $74.00 233 BIDDER Round Stone / Boulders East Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004844 25-75mm Round Stone by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 75-200mm Round Stone by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 250-600mm Round Stone by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 500-1000mm Boulders by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne 300-600mm Boulders by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne 600-800mm Boulders by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne Glen Windrem Trucking $33.50 $38.75 $40.00 $40.00 $56.50 $56.50 Lafarge Canada $30.40 $30.40 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid James Dick Construction Limited $33.54 $37.57 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid Brock Aggregates Inc. $51.00 $54.00 $60.00 $67.00 No Bid No Bid BIDDER Round Stone / Boulders West Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004845 25-75mm Round Stone by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 75-200mm Round Stone by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 250-600mm Round Stone by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne 500-1000mm Boulders by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne 300-600mm Boulders by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne 600-800mm Boulders by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne Glen Windrem Trucking $38.75 $41.50 $43.50 $43.50 $58.00 $58.00 Lafarge Canada $41.50 $41.50 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid James Dick Construction Limited $29.90 $34.43 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid Brock Aggregates Inc. $39.00 $41.00 $67.00 $71.00 No Bid No Bid 234 BIDDER Top Soil East Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004926 Screened Top Soil by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne Piled Top Soil by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne Glen Windrem Trucking $28.80 $343.50 ARNTS The Landscape Supplier $11.00 $7.50 Earthco Soils Inc. $13.73 $225.00 BIDDER Top Soil West Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004927 Screened Top Soil by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne Screened Top Soil by Tri- axle Truck /Tonne Glen Windrem Trucking $32.30 $423.50 James Dick Construction Limited No Bid $338.00 Earthco Soils Inc. $13.73 $225.00 235 RES.#A109/17- VARIOUS PLANT MATERIALS FOR 2017 – 2018 PLANTING SEASONS Contract #10004318 – Vendors of Record. Award of Contract #10004318 for the supply and delivery of various plant materials from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of environmental initiatives that require the procurement of a significant volume of native trees and shrubs to complete; AND WHEREAS in March 2017,TRCA issued a Request for Tender for the supply and delivery of various plant material through a publicly advertised process and evaluated the tenders based on corporate experience and resources, plant material quality, reference checks and cost; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendors of Record (VOR) arrangement with five suppliers for a contract value less than $50,000 per occurrence, for a one year period for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA engages in numerous habitat restoration, engineering, as well as education and outreach initiatives with municipal, regional and community partners. In order to restore ecosystem and watershed health across the jurisdiction, native trees and shrubs are required for these projects and programs. TRCA’s nursery staff at Restoration Services Centre (RSC) manages the purchasing, delivery, interim care, storage and distribution of this plant material through the Indigenous Plant Propagation Program. In the spring of 2016, approximately 35,000 one and two gallon potted trees and shrubs flowed through the facility. This number increases every year. To improve efficiency and reduce administrative staff time, TRCA staff would like to establish a VOR arrangement for the supply and delivery of various plant materials for one time purchases up to $50,000. This VOR will help to ensure a qualified vendor is able to deliver the plant materials at a competitive price while meeting TRCA’s specifications and reducing administrative costs associated with conducting multiple requests for quotations. The VOR list will be subject to a seasonal review in order to confirm that suppliers are providing an adequate level of service and an acceptable quality of plant material. RATIONALE Request for Tender (RFT) for Contract #10004318 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on March 29, 2017. The bid document provided specifications for approximately 80 native species of one and two gallon potted native trees and shrubs. Suppliers were advised that they would be evaluated on the following weighted criteria: 236 Completeness of submission; Availability, quantity and quality of requested plant material (site visit); Corporate profile and experience; References; and Reasonableness of cost. Request for Tender documents were received by 22 suppliers and seven of those suppliers submitted a bid. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the tenders on April 19, 2017. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Waylon D’Souza and Natalie Racette), reviewed the submissions and evaluated them based on the criteria above. The results of the evaluation are as follows: Bidders Weighted Score (out of 100) Neil Vanderkruk (NVK) Holdings Inc. 79 St Williams Nursery and Ecological Centre Inc. 74 Sheridan Nurseries Ltd. 72 Hillen Nursery Inc. 63 Dutchmaster Nurseries Ltd. 61 Richardson Pineneedle Farms 41 Baker Forest Services Disqualified; late submission Through the evaluation process, it was determined that five of the vendors meet TRCA’s requirement for good quality and high value for cost plant material. Richardson Pineneedle Farm was assigned a low score because their proposal did not include a corporate profile or description of their experience, nor did they include references. They also scored poorly during the site visit, and carried a limited stock compared to the other vendors. Given the weak proposal received from Richardson Pineneedle Farms, TRCA staff elected to exclude them from the VOR. This leaves nursery staff with a robust VOR list with several highly qualified, well recommended and experienced vendors, ensuring that the increasingly large demand for plant material will be available as needed. Therefore, staff recommends that the award of Contract #10004318 be awarded to five of the qualified vendors listed above, they being vendors that best meet TRCA’s requirements. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of this contract is estimated to be $1,000,000 based on a review of previous purchases completed in 2016 and a forecast of increasing demand. An option to review pricing in spring 2018 was included in the Request for Tender as the pricing obtained is for the fall 2017 since the industry regularly sees annual price changes. These fluctuations can be due to severe weather conditions, increases in operational costs, production demand and increases in labour and shipping costs. As a result, staff is recommending the VOR be for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, subject to satisfaction with 2018 pricing. This Vendor of Record list will predominantly be used by RSC nursery staff. Plant material will be purchased from suppliers offering the lowest unit cost, the greatest availability and highest quality. Should the supplier with the lowest unit cost not be able to supply the requested quantity, the supplier offering the second lowest cost will be contacted and so on. There may be situations where large orders may need to be fulfil using several suppliers. 237 Funds for the purchase of plant materials are available in account 125-17, Outside Sourced Plant Material (TRCA and non-TRCA lands). Costs to these accounts are recoverable from end user project and programs. Report prepared by: Natalie Racette, extension 5306 Emails: nracette@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Waylon D’Souza, extension 6408 Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: wdsouza@trca.on.ca, rtoninger@trca.on.ca Date: June 2, 2017 ______________________________ 238 RES.#A110/17 - FISHLEIGH DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT Contracts #10005031, 10005032 and 10005033. Award of contracts for stone for the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Contract #10005031 for the supply and delivery of 3800 tonnes of 300 – 600 mm rip-rap to the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Glenn Windrem Trucking for a total unit price of $31.75 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $120,650.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10005032 for the supply and delivery of approximately 4650 tonnes of 4 - 6 tonne piece stackable armourstone to the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project in the City of Toronto, be awarded to CDR Young Aggregates Inc for a total unit price of $53.06 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $246,729.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10005033 for the supply and delivery of approximately 1400 tonnes of 3 – 5 tonne piece stackable armourstone to the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project in the City of Toronto, be awarded to CDR Young Aggregates Inc for a total unit price of $53.06 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $74,284.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded suppliers, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Erosion concerns along the Scarborough Bluffs have been well documented by TRCA for more than 30 years. In 1980-1981, Geocon Inc. carried out an extensive erosion control study of the Scarborough Bluffs as a whole. This study identified Fishleigh Drive as one of the sectors along the Scarborough Bluffs in need of erosion control. In response, TRCA retained Keith Philpott Consulting in 1987 to provide design options for remedial shoreline protection works. In 1988, Terraprobe Limited was retained to conduct subsurface investigations and establish the Long Term Stable Slope Crest (LTSSC). Later that year, based on recommendations and analysis from Keith Philpott Consulting and Terraprobe Limited, TRCA produced an Environmental Study Report (ESR) under the Class Environmental Assessment for Water Management Structures (now Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects). This report, entitled Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, recommended offshore fill and armourstone revetment approximately 560 metres (m) long from 33 – 85 Fishleigh Drive and 1 Midland Avenue to eliminate toe erosion and realize self-stabilization of the bluffs. The Class EA was approved and construction commenced in 1988. 239 In response to public opposition in 1994, a decision was made by TRCA to terminate the revetment structure approximately 150 m short of the distance allowed for in the approved ESR in order to protect the natural formation of the bluffs below 1 Midland Avenue. The shortened revetment ultimately left the eastern extent of Fishleigh Drive vulnerable to powerful southeasterly waves which have resulted in ongoing erosion, putting infrastructure in the area, as well as the road allowance at Fishleigh Drive and Midland Avenue, in jeopardy. This erosion has been documented in numerous geotechnical reports from 1994 to 2014. In response to the previous study results, an addendum to the 1988 Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project ESR was prepared and Terraprobe Limited and Shoreplan Engineering Limited were retained to develop detailed designs to address the continued and unanticipated erosion concerns at the eastern extent of Fishleigh Drive while maintaining the natural formation of the bluffs directly east of the project area. This addendum was approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) on April 07, 2016. TRCA intends to implement a 132 m extension of the existing armourstone revetment than runs along the shoreline below Fishleigh Drive. This extension was designed to be as close to shore and as short as possible to reduce required land creation and impact to the adjacent bluff features, respectively, while allowing an appropriate long-term stable slope crest setback from municipal infrastructure and the Fishleigh Drive and Midland Avenue road allowance atop the tablelands. Implementation is tentatively scheduled for July 2017. RATIONALE Based on pre-tender estimates, bids for contacts #10005031, #10005032, #10005033 were anticipated to be in excess of $100,000 so were tendered out rather than using the 2016 Vendor of Record contract. The 2017 recommendations for Vendor of Record contract is available as a separate staff report on this agenda, and will be utilized for future contracts fitting into the Vendor of Record criteria. Quotation packages were sent to 24 suppliers as follows: Atlantis Marine Construction The Miller Group Nelson Aggregates Glenn Windrem Trucking LaFarge JC Rock Youngs Aggregates James Dick Construction Tomlinson Group Brent Quarry B Town Group Fowler Strada Aggregates Bot Aggregates Ritchie Logistics Rock Valley Natural Stone Mark Cambridge Aggregates Central Sand and Gravel Ltd Jenkins All Stone Quarry Redstone Quarries Stonescape Inc Maxwell Stone Dufferin Aggregates Furthermore, Request for Tenders #10005031, #10005032, #10005033, were publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on May 25, 2017. The Procurement Opening Committee opened tenders on June 8, 2017 with the following results: 240 Contract #10005031 - Supply and Delivery of 3,800 tonnes of 300 – 600mm Rip-Rap BIDDER TOTAL UNIT PRICE (Plus HST) TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (Plus HST) Glenn Windrem Trucking $31.75 $120,650.00 CDR Young Aggregates $34.21 $129,998.00 Btown Group $36.05 $136,990.00 Miller Paving Ltd $36.75 $139,650.00 Ritchie Rocks $39.50 $150,100.00 Atlantis Marine $42.00 $159,600.00 Amos Excavation $78.55 $298,490.00 Contract #10005032 - Supply and Delivery of 4650 Tonnes of 4 – 6 Tonne Piece Stackable Armourstone BIDDER TOTAL UNIT PRICE (Plus HST) TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (Plus HST) CDR Young Aggregates $53.06 $246,729.00 Atlantis Marine $56.00 $260,400.00 Cut Above Natural Stone $57.15 $265,747.50 Btown Group $57.55 $267,607.50 Glenn Windrem Trucking $64.50 $299,925.00 Ritchie Rocks $66.00 $306,900.00 Amos Excavation $107.10 $498,015.00 Contract #10005033 - Supply and Delivery of 1400 Tonnes of 3 – 5 Tonne Piece Stackable Armourstone BIDDER TOTAL UNIT PRICE (Plus HST) TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (Plus HST) CDR Young Aggregates $53.06 $74,284.00 Redstone Quarries $53.90 $75,460.00 Atlantis Marine $56.00 $78,400.00 Cut Above Natural Stone $57.15 $80,010.00 Btown Group $57.50 $80,500.00 Glenn Windrem Trucking $64.50 $90,300.00 Ritchie Rocks $66.00 $92,400.00 Amos Excavation $112.10 $156,940.00 Based on the tenders received, staff recommends that: Glenn Windrem Trucking be awarded Contract #10005031 for the supply and delivery of 3,800 tonnes of 300 – 600mm rip-rap for the unit cost of $31.75 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $120,650.00, plus HST; CDR Young Aggregates Inc. be awarded Contract #10005032 for the supply and delivery of 4650 tonnes of 4 – 6 tonne piece stackable armourstone for the unit cost of $53.06 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $246,729.00, plus HST; 241 CDR Young Aggregates Inc be awarded Contract #10005033 for the supply and delivery of 1400 tonnes of 3 – 5 tonne piece stackable armourstone for the unit cost of $53.06 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $74,284.00, plus HST. These contracts are subject to a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff. TRCA will be conducting quarry inspections to verify that the material is of good quality and meets contract specifications. The licenses of the quarries which the lowest bidders will use to supply the aggregates have been verified to be legitimate and fully licensed using the Ontario government’s “find pits and quarries” online tool: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/find-pits-and-quarries. This project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #2 under TRCA's current 10-year strategic plan. By protecting public safety through the implementation of shoreline stabilization works, TRCA is demonstrating responsible management of our water resources for current and future generations. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is available from the City of Toronto capital budget within account 175-01 Report prepared by: Jet Taylor, 416-688-7627 Emails: jtaylor@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Jet Taylor, 416-688-7627 Emails: jtaylor@trca.on.ca Date: June 8, 2017 ______________________________ 242 RES.#A111/17 - END-USER COMPUTING DEVICES AND SERVICES Award of Contract #10003898 for the Vendors of Record for Supply of End-User Computing Devices and Services. Execution and adoption of the Ontario Education Collaborative Marketplace (OECM) Master Agreement reference OECM-2017-261-02 for the purchase of end user hardware and software. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) execute and adopt the OECM Master Agreement with three (3) vendors: CDW Canada, Compugen Inc. and Dell Canada Inc., for the supply of various end-user computing devices and services, on an as-required basis, up to a total value of $400,000 over a period of four years commencing with the signing of the agreement, with the option to extend the contract for an additional two or four years; THAT TRCA staff be directed to enter into Client Supplier Agreements (CSA) with all three established OECM vendors: CDW Canada, Compugen Inc., and Dell Canada Inc., applying the OECM Master Agreement; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the supplier agreements, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA makes purchases to ensure staff has access to personal computers, laptops and mobile devices as well as all enterprise hardware and software to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. To date these items were purchased following TRCA standard procurement protocols. The OECM process provides an opportunity to achieve better pricing and more efficiency. OECM is a not-for-profit organization that provides supply management and other administrative, management or support services to educational, public sector organizations and not-for-profits. Its core business is collaborative sourcing, customer and supplier partnership management, the goal of which is to generate savings and process efficiencies for public sector and not-for-profit organizations. OECM offers access to collaboratively-sourced and competitively priced products and services from supplier partners in a range of categories including information technology. Other organizations participating in the OECM Master Agreement for end user computing devices and services include York Region District School Board, York University and University of Toronto. By adopting and executing the OECM end user computing devices and services Client Supplier Agreements with the three vendors, TRCA will derive the benefit of OECM’s discounted pricing and vendor procurement compliance. Under this arrangement TRCA will continue its practice of obtaining quotes from the three OECM vendors as well as others to ensure optimal pricing. 243 RATIONALE By executing and adopting OECM’s Master Agreement, TRCA does not commit to any spending or volume limits with the suppliers and remains free to purchase from other suppliers not included in the agreement. However, TRCA will benefit from discounted pricing, vendor procurement compliance and reduced administrative costs. Partnering with OECM helps to expand vendor options for TRCA Information Technology purchases and ensure financial efficiency and responsibility. FINANCIAL DETAILS Executing and adopting the OECM agreement does not, in itself, carry any costs. It will support the purchase of end user computing devices and services valued up to $400,000 until 2021. These will be charged to Capital and Operating accounts from appropriate TRCA divisions. Report prepared by: Lisa Peng, extension 5970, James Dong, extension 5357 Emails: lpeng@trca.on.ca, jdong@trca.on.ca For Information contact: James Dong, extension 5357 Emails: jdong@trca.on.ca Date: May 1, 2017 __________________________________ 244 RES.#A112/17 - AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program. The PAIE Statement of Revenue and Expenditure for the period April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 is presented for Authority approval. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT the Labour Market Integration Unit Statement of Revenue and Expenditure for the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) Program, as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved and signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s Audit and Accountability Guidelines for 2016-2017 Ontario Bridge Training Projects; THAT the Management Representation Letter as outlined in Attachment 2 be signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s Audit and Accountability Guidelines for 2016-2017 Ontario Bridge Training Projects; AND FURTHER THAT the Audited Statement of Revenue and Expenditure, as outlined in Attachment 3, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Funded by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been delivering the PAIE bridge training program since 2006 to assist internationally trained professionals in accessing training, licensing and employment opportunities in their field within the environmental sector. As part of its project audit guidelines, MCI requires Authority approval of PAIE financial statements (Attachment 1), as verification that the financial information in the audit report is complete and accurate. In addition, MCI requires a Management Representation Letter signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in regard to the audited statements. RATIONALE Under funding from MCI, the Authority is responsible for financial reporting and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the financial statements, including verification that: Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project; Funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directly related to this project, have not been included in the Report; The Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project; Reported expenditure is net of HST rebates; Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project; The Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest-bearing account; and Interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project. 245 The accounting firm of KPMG LLP has completed the audit. The Audited Statement of Revenue and Expenses is presented as Attachment 3. Report prepared by: Dash Paja, extension 5593 Email: dpaja@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Pamela Papadopoulos, extension 5973 Email: ppapadopoulos@trca.on.ca Date: June 9, 2017 Attachments: 3 246 Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects 2016-2017 Appendix IV: Labour Market Integration Unit Statement of Revenue and Expenditure Template FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM 2016/04/01 TO 2017/03/31 (Please refer to your Schedule B for the Reporting Period) Organization Name: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Project Case Number: 2013-08-1-15258274 Organizational contact Name: Leigha Howard, Project Manager Telephone #: (416) 661-6600 ext. 5343 Project Name: Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) PROJECT REVENUE Approved Carryover Funding from Previous Reporting Period(s) $ 159,421 Ministry Funding for audit period as per Schedule B (2016/2017) $ 725,000 Tuition/Program Fees $ 24,039 Total $ 908,460 PROJECT EXPENDITURE Total Expenditure $ 636,648 DEFERRED REVENUE Deferred Revenue for audit period as per Schedule B (2016/2017) $ 271,812 UNALLOCATED Unspent funding INTEREST EARNED Interest Earned for audit period 2016/2017 $ 213 I verify that the above financial information is correct and that: Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project; Funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directly related to this project, have not been included in the Report; The Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project. Reported expenditure is net of HST rebates; Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project; The Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest-bearing account; and Interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project. Attachment 1 247 Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects 2016-2017 I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance with the Ontario Bridge Funding Agreement. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Not-for-Profit Organization _________________________________________________ ___________________ Brian Denney Date Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer _________________________________________________ ___________________ Maria Augimeri Date Chair I have the authority to bind the Recipient 248 Attachment 1 Office Of the Chair June 23, 2017 Ms. Benilda Silkowska-Masior Senior Program Advisor Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Labour Market Integration Unit 400 University Avenue, 3rd Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2R9 Dear Ms. Silkowska-Masior: This management representation letter is provided in connection with the audited financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) Program for the year ended March 31, 2017. The financial statements of TRCA’s PAIE Program are the responsibility of management and have been approved by the Authority, the board of TRCA. The financial statements have been prepared by management in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Management has determined that its choice of accounting policies supporting the amounts presented on the financial statements, are presented fairly, in all material respects. TRCA maintains systems of internal accounting and administrative controls of high quality. Such systems are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the financial information is relevant, reliable and accurate and that TRCA’s operations are appropriately accounted for and assets are adequately safeguarded. All transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the financial statements. All liabilities have been reviewed by management in consultation with its external auditor KPMG LLP. There are no material liabilities or contingencies as at the date of this report. Significant assumptions used by management in making accounting estimates, including those measured at fair value, are reasonable and approved by the Authority. The effects of uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements as a whole. A list of the uncorrected misstatements is attached. This letter confirms that TRCA management and the Authority have provided; access to all information to the external auditors of which they were aware of that is relevant to the preparation of the financial statements, such as records, documentation and other matters; additional information that was requested by the external auditors for the purpose of the audit; and unrestricted access to persons within the entity who would be determined necessary to provide audit evidence. 249 2 The Authority is responsible for ensuring that management fulfills its responsibilities for financial reporting and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the financial statements. This letter confirms that TRCA management and the Authority have fulfilled their responsibilities, as determined in the transfer payment agreement dated April 1, 2014; in the Amended Schedule “B” 2015-2016 dated December 17, 2015 and in Revised Schedule “B” of 1st Amending Agreement effective as of January 15, 2017. I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance with the Ontario Bridge Funding Agreement. _________________________________________________ ___________________ Brian Denney Date Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer _________________________________________________ ___________________ Maria Augimeri Date Chair I/we have the authority to bind the Recipient 250 A t t a c h m e n t 3 2 5 1 2 5 2 2 5 3 2 5 4 2 5 5 2 5 6 RES.#A113/17 - CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Comments on the Conservation Authorities Act Component of Bill 139. On May 31, 2017, the provincial government posted proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR#013-0561) for a 61-day commenting period ending July 31, 2017. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis WHEREAS the Province on Ontario has posted the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) as part of Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act for public comment on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR); AND WHEREAS the Province has released “Conserving our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act” outlining the suite of legislative, regulatory, policy and program actions that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) intends to take to modernize the CA Act; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)’s Chief Executive Officer and staff have participated in the provincial CA Act review process; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff report on the provincial government’s proposed amendments to the CA Act under Bill 139 be received and inform TRCA’s final EBR submission; THAT staff continue to work with MNRF, Conservation Ontario and TRCA’s municipal partners in the actions proposed by MNRF to modernize the CA Act; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA’s municipal partners, neighbouring conservation authorities and Conservation Ontario be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2015, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry initiated a three-phase review of the Conservation Authorities Act, which governs Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities (CAs). MNRF developed an initial Conservation Authorities Discussion Paper (fall 2015) to provide an overview of CAs, their funding and governance (EBR#012-4509) along with a series of questions to solicit feedback on opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework governing the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities. In spring 2016, MNRF posted a second discussion paper (EBR#012-7583) that identified priorities for moving forward with the CA Act review, Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal. This was followed by multi-sector engagement sessions hosted by MNRF. TRCA, Conservation Ontario and several other conservation authorities participated in the engagement sessions and provided responses to both discussion papers. TRCA’s comments on Conserving Our Future were received at Authority Meeting #7/16, held on September 23, 2016, under Resolution #A159/16. 257 As a third phase of the review, an amended Conservation Authorities Act was introduced to the legislature on May 30, 2017 and passed First Reading as part of Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act. Bill 139 is an “omnibus bill”, which groups various Acts to be amended including the CA Act, labelled as Schedule 4. The other schedules within the Bill contain amendments to other Acts dealing with the government’s Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) reform, for which the commenting period ends August 14, 2017. Staff will report on this aspect of the Bill at a future meeting. Further to the May 31, 2017 EBR notice for the proposed CA Act amendments, the Province released “Conserving our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act”. This supporting document was posted on June 14, 2017 (EBR#012-7583) and outlines a comprehensive suite of actions to be taken by MNRF to modernize the CA Act. Organized into five themes, the document lists the legislative amendments proposed under the Act as well as a number of proposed policy, regulation and program changes informed by the feedback provided through the ministry’s review. The document’s five themes are: Strengthening Oversight and Accountability Increasing Clarity and Consistency in Programs and Services Increasing Clarity and Consistency in Regulatory Requirements Enhancing Collaboration and Engagement Modernizing Funding Mechanisms The document concludes with a section on implementation which states that the proposed policy, regulation and program changes would be phased in over the next four years to provide the ministry, conservation authorities, participating municipalities, Indigenous communities and other interested parties the opportunity to participate in their development. It goes on to state that a phased approach is also being used in consideration of the time and resources that it may take to operationalize some of the proposed changes. Bill 139 must pass through two more readings in the legislature before it can be enacted. This could take place during the next session of Parliament scheduled to commence September 11, 2017. During this time, it will be debated by Members of the Legislature and could be referred to a Standing Committee for a “clause by clause” review. It should be noted that many of the proposed legislative amendments are enabling only, meaning that, if passed, they would not come into force until a later date through regulations made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGIC) or the Minister. Summary of Proposed Amendments For reference purposes, an unofficial redline version of the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act can be found in Attachment 1. The following summarizes some of the more substantial changes as a result of Bill 139: The addition of a purpose statement (section 0.1): The purpose of this Act is to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario. Currently, the Act does not contain a purpose; however, existing section 20 (1) states the objects of a conservation authority. Section 20 (1) is not proposed to be repealed but is proposed to be amended as follows: 258 The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 20. Governance of conservation authorities: A new section 19.1 is proposed that sets out the power of an authority to make by-laws in relation to its governance, including its meetings, employees, officers and its executive committee. Many of these powers were previously regulation-making powers that CAs held under section 30 of the Act; they are now legislative requirements. Section 19.1 outlines the minimum expectations for the content of administrative by-laws. CAs must have compliant by-laws in place within one year of enactment of Bill 139. Programs and services: A new section 21.1 (1) of the Act, entitled Programs and Services, is being proposed, which sets out three categories of program and services that a CA is required or permitted to provide within its area of jurisdiction: 1. Mandatory programs and services that are required by the regulation. 2. Municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of municipalities situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding. 3. Such other programs and services as the authority may determine are advisable to further its objects. The new provisions of section 40 of the Act would enable the LGIC to make regulations outlining the provincially mandated programs and services CAs are required to provide in (1) above, in accordance with any applicable standards or requirements outlined in the regulation. Furthermore, as per section 40 (2) such regulations may include standards and requirements to mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through increasing resiliency. Fees for programs and services: The powers of authorities under Section 21 (1) in the current Act remain largely intact with the exception of 21 (1) (m) and (m.1) that are proposed to be repealed. Sections 21 (1) (m) and (m.1) are CA powers for using CA-owned or managed land for park or other recreational purposes, to erect structures for such purposes and to charge fees for such services, and to charge fees for services in general approved by the Minister. A new section 21.2, Fees for programs and services, has been added to the Act. The ability for CAs to charge fees for classes of programs and services is now proposed to be determined by the Minister and prescribed through regulation. A CA may charge a fee for a program or service that it provides only if it is set out on the list of classes of programs and services published by the Minister. The amount of a fee charged by a CA for a program or service shall be the amount prescribed by the regulations, or if no amount is prescribed, the amount determined by the CA. In addition, CAs will be required to maintain a fee schedule that sets out the list of programs and services that it provides and in respect of which it charges a fee, the amount of the fee charged or the manner in which the fee is determined. Every CA will be required to adopt a written fee policy that is available to the public and includes the frequency that the policy will be reviewed; the process for carrying out a review and notice of the review; and how a fee can be appealed. 259 Apportionment of Costs: Sections 24 to 27 of the Act are repealed and replaced with new sections allowing CAs to recover their capital costs with respect to projects that they undertake and their operating expenses from their participating municipalities. Currently, the apportionment of those costs and expenses is based on a determination of the benefit each participating municipality receives from a project or from the CA. The amendments provide that the apportionment and where appeals will be heard, will be determined in accordance with regulations to be approved by the LGIC. A definition of “operating expenses” has been added to the Act in section 1 replacing the “administration” and “maintenance” expenses categories in the current Act, yet the amended Act provides no definition of “capital costs”. Existing rules regarding apportionment of costs and their appeal will continue to apply until such time that new regulations are proposed and approved. Regulating Activities: Section 28 of the Act is repealed and substantially updated to provide additional clarity, scope and consistency in the types of activities that are subject to conservation authority approval. The authority of individual CAs to make regulations concerning development and interference with watercourses or wetlands is transferred to the Minister. The content of Section 28 CA regulations, which is currently part of the “content regulation” for CAs (Ontario Regulation 97/04), has been moved up into the Act. Similarly, prohibitions have been added to the Act. Provisions have been added that would enable the Minister to establish exemptions for activities provided that they are undertaken in accordance with regulations made by the ministry. The scope of a CA’s review of a permit application has been further clarified and strengthened in Section 28.1 (4). A CA may now refuse a permit if the activity is likely to create conditions or circumstances that, in the event of a natural hazard, might jeopardize the health or safety of persons or result in the damage or destruction of property. A CA can refuse a permit if in its opinion the activity is likely to affect (versus current wording “will affect”) the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or conservation of land. This strengthened test allows a consideration of probability and possibility. New regulation-making enabling powers by the LGIC are set out in section 28.5 governing other activities that may impact the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources within the area of jurisdiction of a conservation authority. This provision would enable the Province to regulate other activities within the area of the CA in the future, in order to be responsive to current and future natural resource management challenges. The ability to enable regulations governing lands and property owned by a conservation authority, under section 29 of the Act has been transferred from CAs to the Minister. Enforcement and Compliance: Other substantial amendments proposed under Bill 139 are enhanced enforcement mechanisms, i.e., the ability to stop work, the ability to enter privately-owned land, and the ability to charge significantly higher penalties than those currently allowed. The proposed amendments in section 30 update and modernize the suite of compliance tools that can be used by conservation authorities to enforce compliance with regulatory requirements. This section will be enacted at a date to be determined by the Lieutenant Governor. Regulations, Lieutenant Governor in Council and Regulations, Minister: Section 40 of the Act has been enhanced significantly to identify all the regulations needed to operationalize the proposed amendments to the Act. These regulations are either approved by the LGIC or the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. These regulatory changes will be subject to additional public and stakeholder consultation. 260 Preliminary Assessment on the Proposed Amendments to the Act The TRCA review team made up of staff representatives from the CEO’s Office, Finance, Planning and Development, Watershed Strategies, and Property Services are studying the proposed amendments in consultation with TRCA legal counsel. “Conserving our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act” is an important supplementary document as it explains the intent of the Ministry’s proposed amendments to the Act, as well as a suite of proposed regulatory, policy and program changes. The review team has also compared the proposed amendments to the Act with TRCA’s main recommendations to the Province in September 16, 2016 on phase 2 of the CA Act review (Attachment 2). Overall, the changes are positive in that the new purpose statement maintains the broad mandate of CAs with regard to natural resource management, enforcement tools for the section 28 regulation have been enhanced, and CAs’ ability to assist municipalities managing watersheds and combatting climate change has been recognized. Furthermore, many of the standards, requirements and administrative aspects of CAs that are proposed as required to be part of a by-law and provincial regulations are already existing in TRCA’s case either through our own documents, e.g., our Section 28 Regulation, The Living City Policies, supporting technical guidelines, TRCA Rules of Conduct, various memoranda of understanding and service delivery agreements, TRCA’s Fee Policy for Planning and Permitting Fees, etc., or through provincial documents, e.g., Hearing Guidelines, Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities (including the CA fees chapter and the CA planning and permitting chapter (“CALC”)). All of these documents exist as a solid foundation for the new requirements for documentation and transparency pursuant to the Province’s priority for strengthening oversight and accountability of CAs. Furthermore, TRCA’s current Rules of Conduct (by-laws) are mostly in compliance with the Section 19.1 requirements, therefore staff can recommend the changes/additions required to be in place within one year of enactment of Bill 139. That said, much of the outcome of the CA Act review has been deferred to the content of regulations either under the Minister’s approval or through Provincial Cabinet. The details of such regulations and their implications for CAs are unknown at this time. Financial Implications: While no changes to current provincial funding are proposed, MNRF has indicated that outlining provincial expectations for the programs and services to be provided by CAs will provide the opportunity to review existing levels against these expectations and ensure that appropriate funding levels are in place to ensure sustainability of these programs and services. The proposed amendments to the Act will enable the Province to make regulations governing the kinds of cost to be apportioned among participating municipalities as “capital costs” (not currently defined in the Act) and “operating expenses”. Similarly, the Province will also be enabled to make regulations governing how capital costs and operating expenses (e.g. associated with conservation authority programs, services and operation) are apportioned by CAs. Conserving our Future indicates that the Province will work with municipalities and CAs to update the way in which costs are apportioned to participating municipalities, including determining the appropriate body for hearing appeals of apportionment decisions. TRCA will need to monitor and be engaged in this process to more fully understand the implications of the proposed changes, in particular as to how municipalities are able to fund CAs given the categories of programs and services being introduced under the new section 21.1 (1). 261 Fees: The Province has indicated it will be updating the ministry’s Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees to provide CAs with additional guidance on the development of fee schedules. TRCA is well-positioned in this regard as it relates to its plan and permit review functions, given its board-approved Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fees Policy and Guideline (2009) that is consistent with the intent of the proposed amendments. Yet what remains unclear at this time is the scope of programs and services that are to be included in the Minister’s regulation, how prescriptive the amounts to be charged will be, and the manner in which fees are to be calculated (current fees for TRCA services range widely from those for renting a campsite and booking banquet facilities, to environmental education workshop fees and admission fees to conservation areas). This has obvious potential implications to TRCA’s operations and budgeting. Working Groups: Conserving Our Future indicates that MNRF will establish a multi-ministry working group in order to develop the proposed regulatory changes and options for increasing provincial funding levels. A multi-stakeholder Service Delivery Review Committee will be established and tasked with supporting MNRF in the development of proposed policies and procedures. Any proposed regulatory and policy changes will be subject to additional public and stakeholder consultation as appropriate. In consideration of the time and resources that it may take to operationalize some of the proposed changes, a phased approach over the next four years is being proposed by MNRF. Roles and Responsibilities: As also indicated in Conserving Our Future, if passed, the MNRF intends to use the LGIC regulation-making authority to propose regulations to outline the provincially-mandated roles and responsibilities of CAs and provide greater certainty including: a new regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of CAs in managing water-related natural hazards, including programs and services associated with flood forecasting and warning, flood and erosion control and ice management a new regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of CAs in reviewing planning documents for consistency with Provincial Policy Statements, including policies related to natural hazards and land use patterns that promote climate change adaptation and mitigation a new regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of CAs in supporting Ontario’s proposed Wetland Conservation Strategy and provincial commitments to stopping the net loss of wetlands working with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to create a regulation for CAs’ programs and services that includes standards and requirements to mitigate climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through resiliency working with a multi-ministry working group to identify additional areas where mandate programs and services could be developed to support other areas of provincial interest, such as programs and services associated with natural heritage identification, assessment and reporting, land and cultural heritage conservation, biodiversity conservation and watershed planning and management. 262 Implementation: The Province has identified a four-year time horizon for implementation. Given the number and breadth of the regulations proposed to be developed, the timeline for full implementation is ambitious. Moreover, the amendments do not include transition provisions to address the time between the enactment of the amendments and the development and promulgation of the regulations. In this regard, there are some amendments proposed under Bill 139 that may serve CAs better were they to be in force immediately upon enactment. For instance, staff are pleased to see the enhanced enforcement powers and submit that these should be enacted immediately. With respect to stop work orders, staff would request that an accompanying “order to comply” also be added in order to facilitate immediate (albeit interim) mitigation at the expense of the party engaged in the offending activity. Additionally, the amendments do not mention the mapping that supports the s.28 regulations, which would assist in the proper enforcement of the new compliance measures. An amendment that was not proposed but that staff would like to see is with respect to risk management. That is, given the potential liability associated with the operation of flood control infrastructure for which CAs are responsible, particularly in the face of increased exposures associated with climate change, some form of statutory immunity for the good will operation of this essential infrastructure is warranted. Staff would request that a clause to this effect be added to the Act. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff are reviewing the proposed amendments and the supporting Conserving Our Future document as part of existing budgets. No additional funding is required for this review. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In the coming weeks the TRCA review team, in consultation with TRCA legal counsel, will continue to refine the comments on the proposed amendments to the CA Act, informed by the recently posted Conserving Our Future document. Staff welcome any additional comments from Authority members to be incorporated into the submission to the EBR by the deadline of July 31, 2017. Staff will continue to work with TRCA’s municipal partners, Conservation Ontario and the Province in understanding the implications of the proposed amendments and timing of the pending regulations to the operation of TRCA programs and delivery of services. In order to be responsive to the watershed needs of municipal partners in a rapidly growing and intensifying city-region, an approach that provides clarity and direction during this interim/transition period is needed. This is of particular interest to the renewal and creation of municipal memorandums of understanding for various TRCA services, as well as existing section 28 and 29 regulations. Staff will keep the Authority informed on this third and final phase of the Province’s Conservation Authorities Act review. Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281, Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: lnelson@trca.on.ca, mburns@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Denney, extension 6290 Emails: bdenney@trca.on.ca Date: June 23, 2017 Attachments: 2 263 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 1 Attachment 1 Conservation Authorities Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.27 Amended by: 1993, c. 27, Sched.; 1994, c. 27, s. 127; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, ss. 40-47; 1996, c. 32, s. 66; 1997, c. 5, s. 64; 1997, c. 26, Sched.; 1997, c. 29, s. 54; 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 1998, c. 3, s. 33; 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, ss. 1-14; 2000, c. 5, s. 8; 2001, c. 8, s. 203; 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. NOTE: 2004, 2006, 2008,2009,2010 and 2011 amendments were inserted; the Current E-laws bill can be found https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27?search=The+Conservation+Authorities+Act#BK27 Skip Table of Contents CONTENTS 1. Definitions 2. Meeting to establish authority for watershed 3. Establishment, jurisdiction and initial financing 4. Regional municipality to act in place of local municipalities 5. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 6. Hamilton Region Conservation Authority 7. Grand River Conservation Authority 8. Grouping of municipalities 9. Establishment of authority for two or more watersheds 10. Enlargement of authority’s area 11. Amalgamation of authorities 13. Participating municipalities following annexation, etc. 13.1 Dissolution of authority 14. Members of authority 15. Meetings of authority 16. Decision-making at meetings 17. Chair, vice-chair 18. Employees and advisory boards 19. Executive committee 20. Objects 21. Powers of authorities 22. Agreement re road 23. Minister’s powers 24. Projects of authority 25. Apportionment of benefit 26. Determination of capital expenditure 27. Maintenance and administration costs 28. Regulations by authority re area under its jurisdiction 29. Regulations by authority re lands owned by it 30. Regulations by authority: mandatory regulations 30.1 Restriction on entry 31. Expropriation 32. Restrictions on projects 33. Assessment of lands of authority 34. Cemetery lands 35. Right to use water power 36. Assent of electors not necessary 37. Payment to and spending by authority 38. Annual audit 39. Grants 264 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 2 Purpose 0.1 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario. 1. In this Act, “administration costs” means salaries and travelling expenses of members and employees of an authority, office rent, maintenance and purchase of office equipment, expenses connected with exhibits, visual equipment and printed matter for educational purposes, and all expenditures necessary for carrying out the objects of an authority other than capital expenses and maintenance costs of projects; (“frais d’administration”) “operating expenses” include, (a) salaries, per diems and travel expenses of employees and members of an authority, (b) rent and other office costs, (c) program expenses, (d) costs that are related to the operation or maintenance of a project, but not including the project’s capital costs, and (e) such other costs as may be prescribed by regulation; (“dépenses d’exploitation “advisory board” means an advisory board appointed by an authority; (“conseil consultatif”) “authority” means a conservation authority established by or under this Act or a predecessor of this Act; (“office”) “executive committee” means the executive committee appointed by an authority; (“comité de direction”) “land” includes buildings and any estate, term, easement, right or interest in, to, over or affecting land; (“bien-fonds”) “maintenance costs” means all expenditures required specifically in relation to the operation or maintenance of a project; (“frais d’entretien”) “Minister” means the Minister of Natural Resources; (“ministre”) “municipality” means a local municipality, and includes a band under the Indian Act (Canada) that is permitted to control, manage and expend its revenue money under section 69 of that Act; (“municipalité”) “participating municipality” means a municipality that is designated by or under this Act as a participating municipality; (“municipalité participante”) “project” means a work undertaken by an authority for the furtherance of its objects; (“projet”) “watershed” means an area drained by a river and its tributaries. (“bassin hydrographique”) R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 1; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 40; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 1; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. Meeting to establish authority for watershed 2. (1) Where the councils of any two or more municipalities situate either wholly or partly within a watershed by resolution request the Minister to call a meeting for the establishment of an authority for the watershed or any defined part thereof, the Minister shall fix a time and place for such a meeting and shall forthwith notify the council of every municipality either wholly or partly within the watershed or part thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (1). Representatives at meeting (2) The council of each municipality may appoint representatives to attend the meeting in the following numbers: 1. Where the population is 1,000,000 or more, seven representatives. 1.1 Where the population is 500,000 or more but less than 1,000,000, six representatives. 1.2 Where the population is 250,000 or more but less than 500,000, five representatives. 2. Where the population is 100,000 or more but less than 250,000, four representatives. 3. Where the population is 50,000 or more but less than 100,000, three representatives. 4. Where the population is 10,000 or more but less than 50,000, two representatives. 5. Where the population is less than 10,000, one representative. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (2); 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (1). Authority of representatives (3) The representatives so appointed have authority to vote and generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities at the meeting. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (3). 265 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 3 Quorum (4) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities notified are entitled to appoint, but, where not fewer than three representatives are present at a meeting or adjourned meeting, they may adjourn the meeting or adjourned meeting from time to time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (4). Establishment, jurisdiction and initial financing Establishment and jurisdiction of authority 3. (1) Upon receipt by the Minister of a resolution passed at a meeting or adjourned meeting held under section 2 and at which a quorum was present by not less than two-thirds of the representatives present thereat requesting the establishment of an authority, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may establish a conservation authority and designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities and the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (1). Where only part of municipality in watershed (2) Where a municipality is only partly within the watershed, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may include the whole or that part of the municipality in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (2). Name of authority (3) The name of each authority shall be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall conclude with the words “conservation authority” in English and shall include the words “office de protection de la nature” in French. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (3). Corporate body (4) Every authority is a body corporate. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (4). Borrowing power (5) Every authority may, for its purposes, borrow on the promissory note of the authority, at such rate of interest as the Minister approves, such money as may be required until payment to the authority of any grants and of sums to be paid to the authority by the participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (5). Regional municipality to act in place of local municipalities 4. (1) Where a regional municipality has been established, the regional municipality, on and after the 1st day of January after it is established, Upper-tier municipalities Regional municipalities to act in place of local municipalities (1) An upper-tier municipality that was established as a regional municipality before the day subsection 6 (1) of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force, (a) shall act in the place of the local municipalities within the regional municipality for the purpose of appointing representatives to attend a meeting for the establishment or enlargement of a conservation authority or the amalgamation of conservation authorities and for the purpose may appoint representatives in the numbers to which the local municipalities would otherwise have been entitled; and (b) shall be a participating municipality in the place of such of the local municipalities within the regional municipality as are wholly or partly within the area under the jurisdiction of a conservation authority and shall appoint to each such authority the number of members to which the local municipalities would otherwise have been entitled as participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 4 (1). Members appointed by local municipality continue (2) When a regional municipality is established, the members of an authority then holding office who were appointed by a local municipality wholly or partly within the regional municipality shall continue to hold office until their respective terms of office expire and shall be deemed to have been appointed by the regional municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 4 (2). Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5. (1) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is continued under the name Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de Toronto et de la région in French, and has jurisdiction in all matters provided for in this Act over the area under its jurisdiction on December 31, 1990, as it may be altered under this Act. 1997, c. 26, Sched. (2) REPEALED: 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (2). 266 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 4 Designation of participating municipalities and area (3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate, (a) the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and (b) the area over which the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has jurisdiction. 1997, c. 26, Sched. Members (4) Despite subsections 14 (1), (2) and (5) but subject to subsection 14 (2.1), the number of members appointed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority by the City of Toronto shall, at all times, be equal to the total number of members appointed by the other participating municipalities. 1997, c. 26, Sched.; 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (3). Hamilton Region Conservation Authority 6. (1) The Hamilton Region Conservation Authority is continued under the name Hamilton Region Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de la région de Hamilton in French, and has jurisdiction in all matters provided for in this Act over the area under its jurisdiction on the 31st day of December, 1990, as it may be altered under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 6 (1). (2) REPEALED: 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (4). Designation of participating municipalities and area (3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority and the area under its jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 6 (3). (4) REPEALED: 2000, c. 5, s. 8. Grand River Conservation Authority 7. (1) The Grand River Conservation Authority is continued under the name Grand River Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de la rivière Grand in French as a conservation authority under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 7 (1). Designation of participating municipalities and area (2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Grand River Conservation Authority and the area over which it has jurisdiction. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (5). (3) REPEALED: 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (5). Grouping of municipalities 8. The participating municipalities may designate any group of municipalities that shall be considered as one municipality for the purpose of appointing a member or members to a conservation authority and provide for the appointment of the member or members to be appointed by a group of municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 8; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 2. Establishment of authority for two or more watersheds 9. Where the councils of any three municipalities situate either wholly or partly within the area comprising two or more watersheds by resolution request the Minister to call a meeting for the establishment of an authority for such watersheds o r any defined parts thereof, the provisions of sections 2 and 3 apply with necessary modifications. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 9. Enlargement of authority’s area 10. (1) If an authority has been established, the council of a municipality that is completely or partly outside the jurisdiction of the authority may call a meeting to consider the enlargement of the area over which the authority has jurisdiction to include an area specified by the municipality. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 3 (1). Notice of meeting (1.1) The council of every municipality completely or partly within the jurisdiction of the authority or the area specified under subsection (1) shall be given notice of the meeting. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 3 (1). Representatives (2) With respect to each municipality so notified, subsection 2 (2) applies. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 10 (2). 267 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 5 Quorum (3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of the number of members of the existing authority required to constitute a quorum of the authority and two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities notified are entitled to appoint, but, where not fewer than two members of the authority and three municipal representatives are present a t a meeting or an adjourned meeting, they may adjourn the meeting or adjourned meeting from time to time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 10 (3). Resolution (4) A joint resolution, passed at a meeting held under this section, at which a quorum was present, by not less than two- thirds of the members of the authority present at the meeting and not less than two-thirds of the municipal representatives present at the meeting, agreeing to the enlargement of the area over which the authority has jurisdiction, amends the order i n council establishing the authority and has the effect of enlarging the area and designating the additional municipalities and the additional area over which the enlarged authority has jurisdiction in accordance with the resolution. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 3 (2). Notice of meeting (1.1) Notice of the meeting shall be given to each participating municipality of the authority and to any municipality that is completely or partly within the area specified under subsection (1). Representatives (2) Each municipality that receives notice of the meeting may appoint the number of representatives to attend the meeting that is determined in accordance with subsection 2 (2). Quorum (3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities are entitled to appoint under subsection (2). Resolution (4) At a meeting held under this section at which a quorum is present, a resolution may be passed to do all of the following: 1. Agree to enlarge the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. 2. Designate participating municipalities for the enlarged area. 3. Designate the enlarged area over which the authority has jurisdiction. Two-thirds majority vote (5) A resolution described in subsection (4) shall be passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the representatives present at the meeting. Resolution in effect (6) A resolution described in subsection (4) takes effect on such terms as it may specify despite anything to the contrary in the order in council establishing the authority. Minister’s copy (7) The municipality that called a meeting under subsection (1) shall provide the Minister with a copy of any resolution described in subsection (4) passed at the meeting promptly after the resolution is passed. Amalgamation of authorities 11. (1) If two or more authorities have been established for adjoining watersheds or parts thereof, one or more of the authorities or the council of a municipality situated completely or partly within the jurisdiction of one of the authoritiescouncil of a participating municipality of one of the authorities may call a meeting to consider the establishment of one authority to have jurisdiction over the areas that are under separate jurisdictions. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 4 (1). Notice of meeting (1.1) The council of every municipality situated completely or partly within the jurisdictions of the authorities shall be given notice of the meeting. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 4 (1). Notice of the meeting shall be given to each participating municipality of the relevant authorities. Public notice (1.2) The body or bodies that call a meeting under subsection (1) shall ensure that, at least 14 days before the meeting, notice of the meeting is, (a) published in a newspaper having general circulation in each participating municipality, including in the electronic version of the newspaper where available; or (b) if there is no newspaper of general circulation in a participating municipality, posted on a website maintained by the municipality and in at least one prominent place in the municipality. 268 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 6 Public representations (1.3) No vote shall be taken on a resolution requesting amalgamation of the authorities unless members of the public have (1.1) been given an opportunity at the meeting to make representations on the issue. Representatives (2) With respect to each municipality so notified, subsection 2 (2) applies. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 11 (2). Quorum (2) Each municipality that receives notice of the meeting may appoint the number of representatives to attend the meeting that is determined in accordance with subsection 2 (2). Quorum (3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities are entitled to appoint under subsection (2). (3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities notified are entitled to appoint, but, where not fewer than three representatives are present at a meeting or adjourned meeting, they may adjourn the meeting or adjourned meeting from time to time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 11 (3). Resolution (4) At a meeting held under this section at which a quorum is present, a resolution may be passed to do all of the following: 1. Establish a new authority that has jurisdiction over areas that previously were under the separate jurisdiction of the two or more existing authorities of the adjoining watersheds. 2. Dissolve the existing authorities. 3. Designate the participating municipalities for the new authority. 4. Designate the area over which the new authority has jurisdiction. Two-thirds majority vote (4.1) A resolution described in subsection (4) shall be passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the representatives present at the meeting. Approval by Minister (4.2) The authorities or the municipality who called a meeting under subsection (1) shall submit the resolution passed in accordance with subsection (4.1) to the Minister for approval and the Minister may approve the resolution with such changes and on such terms and conditions as he or she considers appropriate. Resolution in effect (4.3) The resolution takes effect in accordance with the terms of the resolution and the Minister’s approval. (4) A resolution, passed at a meeting held under this section, at which a quorum was present, by not less than two-thirds of the representatives present at the meeting, agreeing to the establishment of one authority, has the effect of establishing the new authority, dissolving the existing authorities and designating the municipalities that are the participating municipalities and the area over which the new authority has jurisdiction in accordance with the resolution. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 4 (2). Assets and liabilities of former authorities (5) Upon the establishment of a new authority and the dissolution of the existing authorities under subsection (4), When the establishment of a new authority and the dissolution of the existing authorities take effect under subsection (4.3)”.all the assets and liabilities of the dissolved authorities vest in and become assets and liabilities of the new authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 11 (5). 12. REPEALED: 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 5. Participating municipalities following annexation, etc. 13. Where a new municipality is erected or two or more municipalities are amalgamated or any area is annexed to a municipality and any part of the resulting municipality is within the area over which an authority has jurisdiction, such resulting municipality shall be deemed to have been designated a participating municipality by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 13. Dissolution of authority 13.1 (1) An authority shall call a meeting of the members of the authority to consider the dissolution of the authority if, by resolution, the councils of two or more participating municipalities request the meeting Public notice (1.1) The authority that calls a meeting under subsection (1) shall ensure that, at least 14 days before the meeting, notice of 269 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 7 the meeting is, (a) published in a newspaper having general circulation in each participating municipality, including in the electronic version of the newspaper where available; or (b) if there is no newspaper of general circulation in a participating municipality, posted on a website maintained by the municipality and in at least one prominent place in the municipality.. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. Quorum (2) Despite subsection 16 (2), a quorum at a meeting called under this section consists of two-thirds of the members of the authority who were appointed by participating municipalities. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. Members not entitled to vote (3) Despite subsection 16 (1), members of the authority who were appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council before section 42 of Schedule M of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 came into force are not entitled to vote at a meeting held under this section. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. Notice of meeting (4) The authority shall ensure that notice of the meeting is published in a newspaper having general circulation in each participating municipality at least 14 days before the meeting. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. Public representations (5) No vote shall be taken on a resolution requesting dissolution of the authority unless members of the public have been given an opportunity at the meeting to make representations on the issue. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. Criteria for dissolution (6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may dissolve the authority, on such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate, if, (a) the Minister receives a resolution requesting the dissolution passed by at least two-thirds of the members of the authority present and entitled to vote at a meeting held under this section and at which a quorum was present; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that acceptable provision has been made for future flood control and watershed interests and for the disposition of all assets and liabilities of the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. (c) the Minister of the Environment is satisfied that acceptable provision has been made for future protection of drinking water sources. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41; 2006, c. 22, s. 113 (1). Authority continued by s. 5, 6 or 7 (7) If an authority continued by section 5, 6 or 7 is dissolved under subsection (6), the Lieutenant Governor may, by proclamation, repeal that section on a day named in the proclamation. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41. Members of authority 14. (1) Members of an authority shall be appointed by the respective councils of the participating municipalities in the numbers prescribed by subsection 2 (2) for the appointment of representatives, and each member shall hold office until the first meeting of the authority after the term for which he or she was appointed has expired. Members of authority (1) Members of an authority shall be appointed by the respective councils of the participating municipalities in the numbers set out in subsection 2 (2) for the appointment of representatives. (2) Subsection 14 (4) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: Requirements regarding composition of authority (4) The appointment of members to an authority shall be in accordance with such additional requirements regarding the composition of the authority and the qualification of members as may be prescribed by regulation. Term (4.1) A member shall be appointed for a term of up to four years, as may be determined by the council that appoints the member. Same (4.2) A member’s term begins at the first meeting of the authority after his or her appointment and expires immediately before the first meeting of the authority after the appointment of his or her replacement. Replacement of member (4.3) Despite subsections (4.1) and (4.2), a member may be replaced by the council of the participating municipality that 270 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 8 appointed the member. Reappointment (4.4) A member is eligible to be reappointed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (1). Changes in number of members (2) The total number of members of the authority and the number of members that each participating municipality may appoint shall be adjusted as required to ensure compliance with subsection (1) if the municipalities that are participating municipalities change or the population of a participating municipality changes. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (6). Agreement on number of members (2.1) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (5), the total number of members of the authority and the number of members that each participating municipality may appoint may be determined by an agreement that is confirmed by resolutions passed by the councils of all of the participating municipalities. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (6). Qualification (3) Every member of an authority shall be resident in a participating municipality in which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (3). Term (4) No member of an authority shall be appointed to hold office for more than three years at any one time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (4). Where part of municipality in authority’s area (5) Where part only of a municipality is situated in an area over which an authority has jurisdiction, the number of members appointed for the municipality shall be based on the population of that part only of the municipality, and the population shall be deemed to be the same proportion of the total population of the whole municipality as the area of that part of the municipality is of the total area of the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (5). (6) REPEALED: 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 42. Meetings of authority 15. (1) The first meeting of an authority shall be held at such time and place as may be determined by the Minister and, in each year thereafter, the authority shall hold at least one meeting before the 1st day of March and at least one meeting after the 1st day of July and such other meetings as it considers necessary to effectively conduct the affairs of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 15 (1). Copies of minutes to members (2) Within 30 days after any meeting of an authority or of an executive committee, the secretary-treasurer of the authority shall send a copy of the minutes of the meeting to each member of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 15 (2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 7Open meetings (3) Every meeting held by the authority shall be open to the public, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the bylaws of the authority. Decision-making at meetings 16. (1) Each member of an authority is entitled to one vote. 1998, c. 18, Sched, I, s. 8. Quorum (2) At any meeting of an authority, a quorum consists of one-half of the members appointed by the participating municipalities, except where there are fewer than six such members, in which case three such members constitute a quorum. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 16 (2); 2006, c. 22, s. 113 (2). Majority vote (3) A majority vote of the members present at any meeting is required upon all matters coming before the meeting. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 16 (3). 271 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 9 Chair, vice-chair 17. (1) At the first meeting of an authority and thereafter at the first meeting held in each year At the first meeting held in each year or at such other meeting as may be specified by the authority’s by-laws, the authority shall appoint a chair and one or more vice-chairs from among the members of the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 43. Vacancy (2) Subject to subsection (1), upon the death of the chair or a vice-chair, or upon the incapacity of the chair or a vice-chair to act, or upon the chair or a vice-chair ceasing to be a member of the authority, the remaining members may appoint a member to fill such vacancy. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 17 (2). Absence of chair and vice-chairs (3) In the event of the absence of the chair and the vice-chairs from any meeting of an authority, the members present shall appoint an acting chair who, for the purposes of such meeting, has all the powers and shall perform all the duties of the chair. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 17 (3). Employees and advisory boards Employees 18. (1) An authority shall appoint a secretary-treasurer and may appoint such other employees as it considers necessary who shall hold office during the pleasure of the authority and shall receive such salary or other remuneration as the authority determines, payable out of the funds of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 18 (1). Advisory boards (2) An authority may appoint one or more advisory boards(2) An authority shall establish such advisory boards as may be required by regulation and may establish such other advisory boards as it considers appropriate. Same (3) An advisory board shall comply with any requirements that may be prescribed by regulation with respect to its composition, functions, powers, duties, activities and procedures. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 18 (2). Executive committee 19. (1) The authority may appoint an executive committee from among the members of the authority. 19.1 (1) An authority may make by-laws, (a) respecting the meetings to be held by the authority, including providing for the calling of the meetings and the procedures to be followed at meetings, specifying which meetings, if any, may be closed to the public; (b) prescribing the powers and duties of the secretary-treasurer; (c) designating and empowering officers to sign contracts, agreements and other documents on behalf of the authority; (d) delegating all or any of its powers to the executive committee except, (i) the termination of the services of the secretary-treasurer, (ii) the power to raise money, and (iii) the power to enter into contracts or agreements other than those contracts or agreements as are necessarily incidental to the works approved by the authority; (e) providing for the composition of its executive committee and for the establishment of other committees that it considers advisable and respecting any other matters relating to its governance; (f) respecting the roles and responsibilities of the members of the authority and of its officers and senior staff; (g) requiring accountability and transparency in the administration of the authority including, (i) providing for the retention of records specified in the by-laws and for making the records available to the public, (ii) establishing a code of conduct for the members of the authority, and (iii) adopting conflict of interest guidelines for the members of the authority; (h) respecting the management of the authority’s financial affairs, including auditing and reporting on the authority’s finances; (i) respecting the by-law review required under subsection (3) and providing for the frequency of the reviews; and (j) respecting such other matters as may be prescribed by regulation. Conflict with other laws (2) If a by-law made by an authority conflicts with any provision of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal 272 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 10 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or a provision of a regulation made under one of those Acts, the provision of the Act or regulation prevails. Periodic review of by-laws (3) At such regular intervals as may be determined by by-law, an authority shall undertake a review of all of its by-laws to ensure, amongst other things, that the by-laws are in compliance with any Act referred to in subsection (2) or any other relevant law. By-laws available to public (4) An authority shall make its by-laws available to the public in the manner it considers appropriate. Transition (5) An authority shall make such by-laws under this section as are required for its proper administration, (a) in the case of an authority that was established on or before the day section 16 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force, within one year of that day; and (b) in the case of an authority that is established after the day section 16 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force, within one year of the day the authority is established. Direction by Minister (6) The Minister may give an authority a written direction to make or amend a by-law on any matter described in subsection (1), in accordance with the direction, within such period of time as may be specified in the direction. Compliance (7) The authority that receives a direction under subsection (6) shall comply with the direction within the time specified in the direction. Regulation where failure to comply (8) If an authority fails to adopt a by-law in accordance with the direction made under subsection (6), the Minister may make regulations in relation to the matters set out in the direction that are applicable in the area of jurisdiction of the authority. Same (9) Any regulation made by the Minister under subsection (8) prevails over any conflicting by-law that the authority may have adopted. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 19 (1). Chair, vice-chair (2) The chair and vice-chair of the authority shall be the chair and vice-chair of the executive committee. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 19 (2). (3) REPEALED: 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 9. Objects 20. (1) The objects of an authority are to provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designedto establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 20. Same (2) Despite subsection (1) and subject to any other legislation pertaining to these resources, authorities may enter into agreements to allow exploration, storage and extraction by others in order to share in the revenue from use of gas or oil resources owned by them if, (a) the use is compatible with the conservation, restoration, development and management of other natural resources; and (b) extraction occurs on land adjacent to, but not on, conservation authority land. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 10. Powers of authorities 21. (1) For the purposes of accomplishing its objects, an authority has power, (a) to study and investigate the watershed and to determine programs and services a program whereby the natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed; (b) for any purpose necessary to any project under consideration or undertaken by the authority, to enter into and upon any land and survey and take levels of it and make such borings or sink such trial pits as the authority considers necessary; 273 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 11 (c) to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise and to expropriate any land that it may require, and, subject to subsection (2), to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land so acquired; (d) despite subsection (2), to lease for a term of five years or less land acquired by the authority; (e) to purchase or acquire any personal property that it may require and sell or otherwise deal therewith; (f) to enter into agreements for the purchase of materials, employment of labour and other purposes as may be necessary for the due carrying out of any project or to further the authority’s objects; (g) to enter into agreements with owners of private lands to facilitate the due carrying out of any project; (h) to determine the proportion of the total benefit afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them; (i) to erect works and structures and create reservoirs by the construction of dams or otherwise; (j) to control the flow of surface waters in order to prevent floods or pollution or to reduce the adverse effects thereof; (k) to alter the course of any river, canal, brook, stream or watercourse, and divert or alter, as well temporarily as permanently, the course of any river, stream, road, street or way, or raise or sink its level in order to carry it over or under, on the level of or by the side of any work built or to be built by the authority, and to divert or alter the position of any water-pipe, gas-pipe, sewer, drain or any telegraph, telephone or electric wire or pole; (l) to use lands that are owned or controlled by the authority for purposes, not inconsistent with its objects, as it considers proper; (m) to use lands owned or controlled by the authority for park or other recreational purposes, and to erect, or permit to be erected, buildings, booths and facilities for such purposes and to make charges for admission thereto and the use thereof; (m.1) to charge fees for services approved by the Minister; (n) to collaborate and enter into agreements with ministries and agencies of government, municipal councils and local boards and other organizations and individuals ; (o) to plant and produce trees on Crown lands with the consent of the Minister, and on other lands with the consent of the owner, for any purpose; (p) to cause research to be done; (q) generally to do all such acts as are necessary for the due carrying out of any project or as may be desirable to further the objects of the authority” R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 21; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (1, 2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 11. Programs and services 21.1 (1) The following are the programs and services that an authority is required or permitted to provide within its area of jurisdiction: 1. Mandatory programs and services that are required by regulation. 2. Municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of municipalities situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding referred to in subsection (3). 3. Such other programs and services as the authority may determine are advisable to further its objects. Mandatory programs and services (2) Programs and services referred to in paragraph 1 of subsection (1) shall be provided in accordance with such standards and requirements as may be set out in the regulations. Memorandum of understanding with municipalities (3) An authority may enter into a memorandum of understanding with a municipality situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction in respect of programs and services that the authority will provide on behalf of the municipality. Memorandum available to public (3.1) An authority shall make a memorandum of understanding referred to in subsection (3) available to the public in such manner as may be determined in the memorandum. Periodic review of memorandum (4) An authority and a municipality who have entered into a memorandum of understanding described in subsection (3) shall review the memorandum at such regular intervals as may be determined by the memorandum. 274 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 12 Municipal programs and services (5) Programs and services that an authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the memorandum of understanding or in such other agreement as may be entered into by the authority and the municipality. Consultation (6) An authority shall carry out such consultations with respect to the programs and services it provides as may be required by regulation and shall do so in the manner specified by regulation. 21 The Act is amended by adding the following section: Fees for programs and services 21.2 (1) The Minister may determine classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge a fee. Publication of list (2) The Minister shall publish the list of classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge a fee in a policy document and distribute the document to each authority. Updating list (3) If the Minister makes changes to the list of classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge a fee, the Minister shall promptly update the policy document referred to in subsection (2) and distribute the new document to each authority. Where authority may charge fee (4) An authority may charge a fee for a program or service that it provides only if it is set out on the list of classes of programs and services referred to in subsection (2). Amount of fee (5) The amount of a fee charged by an authority for a program or service it provides shall be, (a) the amount prescribed by the regulations; or (b) if no amount is prescribed, the amount determined by the authority. Fee schedule (6) Every authority shall prepare and maintain a fee schedule that sets out, (a) the list of programs and services that it provides and in respect of which it charges a fee; and (b) the amount of the fee charged for each program or service or the manner in which the fee is determined. Fee policy (7) Every authority shall adopt a written policy with respect to the fees that it charges for the programs and services it provides, and the policy shall set out, (a) the fee schedule described in subsection (6); (b) the frequency within which the fee policy shall be reviewed by the authority under subsection (9); (c) the process for carrying out a review of the fee policy, including the rules for giving notice of the review and of any changes resulting from the review; and (d) the circumstances in which a person may request that the authority reconsider a fee that was charged to the person and the procedures applicable to the reconsideration. Fee policy to be made public (8) Every authority shall make the fee policy available to the public in a manner it considers appropriate. Periodic review of fee policy (9) At such regular intervals as may be determined by an authority, the authority shall undertake a review of its fee policy, including a review of the fees set out in the fee schedule. Notice of fee changes (10) If, after a review of a fee policy or at any other time, an authority wishes to make a change to the list of fees set out in the fee schedule or to the amount of any fee or the manner in which a fee is determined, the authority shall give notice of the proposed change to the public in a manner it considers appropriate. Reconsideration of fee charged (11) Any person who considers that the authority has charged a fee that is contrary to the fees set out in the fee schedule, or that the fee set out in the fee schedule is excessive in relation to the service or program for which it is charged, may apply to the authority in accordance with the procedures set out in the fee policy and request that it reconsider the fee that was charged. Powers of authority on reconsideration (12) Upon reconsideration of a fee that was charged for a program or service provided by an authority, the authority may, 275 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 13 (a) order the person to pay the fee in the amount originally charged; (b) vary the amount of the fee originally charged, as the authority considers appropriate; or (c) order that no fee be charged for the program or service. Approval of Minister (2) If the Minister has made a grant to an authority under section 39 in respect of land, the authority shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land under clause (1) (c) without the approval of the Minister except if, (a) the disposition is for provincial or municipal infrastructure and utility purposes; (b) the province, the provincial agency, board or commission affected by the disposition or the municipal government, agency, board or commission affected by the disposition has approved it; and (c) the authority informs the Minister of the disposition. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (1). Terms and conditions (3) The Minister may impose terms and conditions on an approval given under subsection (2), including a condition that the authority pay a specified share of the proceeds of the disposition to the Minister. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (3). Agreement re road 22. An authority and any municipality may enter into agreement for the construction or maintenance of a road or the reconstruction or maintenance of an existing road under the jurisdiction of the municipality for the purpose of providing access to lands of the authority used or to be used for park or recreational purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 22. Minister’s powers 23. (1) Despite any powers conferred on an authority by this Act, the Minister may, when and for such periods as he or she considers necessary in the public interest, (a) require an authority to carry out flood control operations in a manner specified by the Minister; (b) require an authority to follow instructions issued by the Minister for the operation of one or more of the authority’s water control structures; or (c) take over the operation of one or more of an authority’s water control structures and require the authority to reimburse the Minister for any costs incurred by the Minister as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 45. Areas not under jurisdiction of authority (2) Despite any powers conferred on the council of a municipality under this or any other Act, in an area that is not under the jurisdiction of an authority, the Minister may, when and for such periods as he or she considers necessary in the public interest, (a) require the council of a municipality to carry out flood control operations in a manner specified by the Minister; (b) require the council of a municipality to follow instructions issued by the Minister for the operation of one or more of the water control structures operated by the council; or (c) take over the operation of one or more of the water control structures operated by the council of a municipality and require the council to reimburse the Minister for any costs incurred by the Minister as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 45. Definition (3) In subsection (2), “municipality” includes an upper-tier municipality. Information required by Minister 23.1 (1) An authority shall provide the Minister with such information as the Minister may require in relation to its operations, including the programs and services it provides. Same (2) The information shall be provided at the time and in the manner as the Minister may specify. Publication (3) If directed by the Minister to do so, an authority shall publish all or such portion of the information provided to the 276 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 14 Minister under subsection (1) and shall do so at the time and in the manner specified by the Minister. 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. Projects of authority Projects requiring approval 24 Before proceeding with a project that involves money granted by the Minister under section 39, the authority shall file plans and a description with the Minister and obtain his or her approval in writing. Recovery of project capital costs 25 (1) An authority may, from time to time, determine the amount of capital costs to be incurred in connection with a project and apportion the capital costs to the participating municipalities in accordance with the regulations. Notice of apportionment (2) An authority shall send a notice of apportionment in writing to each participating municipality setting out the amount of the capital costs for a project that has been apportioned to the participating municipality. Payment of apportioned amount (3) Each participating municipality shall pay to the authority the portion of the capital costs for a project that is specified in the notice of apportionment in accordance with the requirements set out in the notice and with this section. How money to be raised (4) Each participating municipality may issue debentures to provide financing for the capital costs for a project of an authority. Where money raised over several years (5) If the notice of apportionment requires a municipality to raise its portion of the capital costs for a project over a period of two or more years, the municipality shall, within 30 days of receiving the notice of apportionment, give the authority written notice of how it will pay its portion of the capital costs. Debt due (6) The amount of the portion of the capital costs for a project that is specified in a notice of apportionment sent to a participating municipality is a debt due by the participating municipality to the authority and may be enforced by the authority as such. Review of apportionment of capital costs 26 (1) Any participating municipality that receives a notice of apportionment under section 25 may, within 30 days after receiving the notice of apportionment, apply to the Ontario Municipal Board, or to such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, for a review of the apportionment among the participating municipalities of the capital costs for the relevant project. Same (2) The participating municipality that makes an application under subsection (1) shall send a copy of the notice of application to the authority and to every other participating municipality of the authority. Hearing (3) The Ontario Municipal Board, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, shall hold a hearing to reconsider the apportionment of capital costs among the participating municipalities, including considering whether the apportionment complies with section 25 and the regulations and whether the portion apportioned to the municipality is otherwise appropriate. Parties (4) The parties to the hearing are the applicant municipality, the authority, any other participating municipality of the authority that requests to be a party, and such other persons as the Ontario Municipal Board, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may determine. Requirement to pay costs stayed (5) A participating municipality that makes an application under this section is not required to pay the portion of the capit al costs that was apportioned to the municipality under the notice of apportionment until the determination of the application. Delay of notice (6) A participating municipality that makes an application under this section is not required to give notice under subsection 25 (5) until 30 days after the final determination of the application. Powers on hearing (7) Upon hearing an application under this section, the Ontario Municipal Board, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may confirm or vary the apportionment of the capital costs by the authority among the participating municipalities. 277 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 15 Decision final (8) A decision under subsection (7) is final. 24. (1) Before proceeding with a project, the authority shall file plans and a description with the Minister and obtain his or her approval in writing. 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (1). (2) REPEALED: 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (1). Notice re raising of portion of cost (3) When the statement of apportionment of the cost of any project requires a municipality to raise any portion of the cost in a subsequent year or years, the council shall, within thirty days after it receives the notice of apportionment, notify th e authority in writing whether the portion of the cost will be provided by the issue of debentures or raised by taxation in the subsequent year or years. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (3). Time for notice where apportionment under review (4) When a municipal council has, in accordance with subsection 25 (2), notified the secretary of the Ontario Municipal Board that it is dissatisfied with any apportionment, the time allowed for notifying the authority under subsection (3) shall be reckoned from the date of the order confirming or varying the apportionment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (4). (5) REPEALED: 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (2). Approval of works on lakes or rivers (6) Despite the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, a project for the construction of dams or other works on a lake or river that has been approved under this section does not require approval under that Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (6). Application (7) This section does not apply to a project unless the project involves money granted by the Minister under section 39. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 46. Apportionment of benefit 25. (1) When an authority has determined the proportion of the total benefit of any project afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them, it shall cause a notice containing a statement of the apportionment to be sent to the council of each participating municipality by registered mail. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (1). Review of apportionment by O.M.B. (2) Any municipal council that is dissatisfied with any apportionment may, within thirty days after it receives notice of the apportionment, notify the secretary of the Ontario Municipal Board and the authority in writing by registered mail that it applies for a review of the apportionment by the Ontario Municipal Board. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (2). Hearing (3) Upon application, the Ontario Municipal Board shall fix a date for the hearing of all interested parties and shall give all necessary directions for the hearing. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (3). Powers of O.M.B. on hearing (4) The Ontario Municipal Board has authority to take evidence, to confirm or vary the apportionment of the authority and to fix and award costs, and its decision is final and conclusive and is not open to appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (4). Variation of apportionment (5) In the event of the authority varying any apportionment made by it, this section applies with necessary modifications. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (5). Determination of capital expenditure 26. (1) An authority may, from time to time, determine what money will be required for capital expenditure in connection with any project. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (1). Portion to be raised by participating municipalities (2) The portion of the money so required that each participating municipality shall raise shall be in the same proportion as the benefit derived by each such municipality bears to the total benefit derived by all participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (2). 278 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 16 How money to be raised (3) Upon notice in writing of the amount required to be raised, signed by the secretary-treasurer of the authority, each participating municipality shall raise by the issue of debentures or otherwise such money as may be required by the authority for capital expenditure. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (3); 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (3). Enforcement of payment (4) Subject to subsection (3), an authority may enforce payment against any participating municipality of the portion of the capital cost required to be raised by the municipality as a debt due by the municipality to the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (4). Where only part of municipality in area (5) Where only a part of a participating municipality is situated in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction, the portion of the money required to be raised by that municipality for capital expenditure may be charged only against the rateable property in that part of the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (5). (6) REPEALED: 1994, c. 27, s. 127. Maintenance and administration costs 27. (1) REPEALED: 1997, c. 29, s. 54 (1). Apportionment of maintenance costs Recovery of operating expenses 27 (1) Every year an authority shall determine its operating expenses for the subsequent year and apportion those expenses to the participating municipalities in accordance with the regulations. Fixed portion for some municipalities (2) Despite subsection (1) and subject to the regulations, an authority may establish a fixed minimal amount as the portion of the authority’s operating expenses that a participating municipality is required to pay each year, and may apportion that amount to the municipality instead of the portion determined under subsection (1) in any year in which the fixed minimal amount exceeds the portion determined under subsection (1). Notice of apportionment (3) An authority shall send a notice of apportionment in writing to each participating municipality setting out the amount of the operating expenses that has been apportioned to the participating municipality. Collection as taxes (4) Each participating municipality shall collect the amount apportioned to it in the same manner as municipal taxes for general purposes and shall remit the amount collected to the authority. Debt due (5) The amount of the portion of the operating expenses specified in a notice of apportionment sent to a participating municipality is a debt due by the participating municipality to the authority and may be enforced by the authority as such. 45 Review of apportionment of operating expenses 27.1 (1) Any participating municipality that receives a notice of apportionment under section 27 may, within 30 days of receiving the notice, apply to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or to such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, for a review of the apportionment of the operating expenses. Same (2) The participating municipality that makes an application under subsection (1) shall send a copy of the notice of application to the authority and to every other participating municipality of the authority. Hearing (3) The Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, shall hold a hearing to reconsider the apportionment of the operating expenses, including considering whether the apportionment complies with section 27 and the regulations and whether the portion apportioned to the municipality is otherwise appropriate. Parties (4) The parties to the hearing are the applicant municipality, the authority, any other participating municipality of the authority that requests to be a party and such other persons as the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may determine. No stay (5) The appellant municipality shall comply with the notice of apportionment pending the determination of the application. Powers on hearing 279 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 17 (6) Upon hearing an application under this section, the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, may confirm or vary the apportionment of the operating expenses by the authority among the participating municipalities and may order participating municipalities to pay such portion of the operating expenses as it determines. Decision final (7) A decision under subsection (6) is final. (2) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), after determining the approximate maintenance costs for the succeeding year, the authority shall apportion the costs to the participating municipalities according to the benefit derived or to be derived by each municipality, and the amount apportioned to each such municipality shall be levied against the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (2); 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (1). Apportionment of administration costs (3) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), after determining the approximate administration costs for the succeeding year, the authority shall apportion the costs to the participating municipalities and the amount apportioned to each such municipality shall be levied against the municipality. 1997, c. 29, s. 54 (2). Minimum levy for administration costs (4) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), an authority may establish a minimum sum that may be levied for administration costs by the authority against a participating municipality, and, where the amount apportioned to an y municipality under subsection (3) is less than the minimum sum, the authority may levy the minimum sum against the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (4); 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (3). Notice of apportionment (5) The secretary-treasurer of the authority, forthwith after the amounts have been apportioned under subsections (2), (3) and (4), shall certify to the clerk of each participating municipality the total amount that has been levied under those subsections, and the amount shall be collected by the municipality in the same manner as municipal taxes for general purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (5). Levy where only part of municipality in area (6) Where only a part of a participating municipality is situated in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction, the amount apportioned to that municipality may be charged only against the rateable property in that part of the municipality and shall be collected in the same manner as municipal taxes for general purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (6). Enforcement of payment (7) An authority may enforce payment against any participating municipality of any portion of the maintenance costs or administration costs levied against the municipality as a debt due by the municipality to the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (7). Appeal (8) A municipality against which a levy is made under this section may appeal the levy to the Mining and Lands Commissioner appointed under the Ministry of Natural Resources Act. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Time for appeal (9) The appeal must be commenced within 30 days after the municipality receives notice of the levy from the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Parties (10) The parties to the appeal are the municipality, the authority and any other person added as a party by the Commissioner. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Compliance pending determination (11) The municipality shall comply with the levy pending the determination of the appeal. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Matters to be considered at hearing (12) The Commissioner shall hold a hearing on the appeal and shall consider, (a) whether the levy complies with this section and the regulations made under subsection (16); and 280 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 18 (b) whether the levy is otherwise appropriate. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Powers of Commissioner (13) The Commissioner may, by order, confirm, rescind or vary the amount of the levy and may order the authority or the municipality to pay any amount owing as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). No appeal (14) No appeal lies from the decision of the Commissioner. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). When subss. (8-14) begin to apply (15) Subsections (8) to (14) do not apply until the first regulation made under subsection (16) comes into force. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Regulations re levies (16) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the nature and amount of the levies made by authorities under this section, including regulations that restrict or prohibit the making of levies described in the regulations. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4). Regulations by authority re area under its jurisdiction Prohibited activities re watercourses, wetlands, etc. 28 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 28.1, no person shall carry on the following activities, or permit another person to carry on the following activities, in the area of jurisdiction of an authority: 1. Activities to straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or to change or interfere in any way with a wetland. 2. Development activities in areas that are within the authority’s area of jurisdiction and are, i. hazardous lands, ii. wetlands, iii. river or stream valleys the limits of which shall be determined in accordance with the regulations, iv. areas that are adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to an inland lake and that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazards, such areas to be further determined or specified in accordance with the regulations, or v. other areas in which development should be prohibited or regulated, as may be determined by the regulations. Exception, aggregates (2) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to an activity approved under the Aggregate Resources Act after December 18, 1998, the date the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent. Same, prescribed activities (3) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to an activity or a type of activity that is prescribed by regulation and is carried out in accordance with the regulations. Same, prescribed areas (4) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to any activity described in that subsection if it is carried out, (a) in an area that is within an authority’s area of jurisdiction and specified in the regulations; and (b) in accordance with any conditions specified in the regulations. Definitions (5) In this section, “development activity” means a development activity as defined by regulation; (“activité d’aménagement”) “hazardous land” means hazardous land as defined by regulation; (“terrain dangereux”) “watercourse” means a watercourse as defined by regulation; (“cours d’eau”) “wetland” means a wetland as defined by regulation. (“terre marécageuse”) Permits 28.1 (1) An authority may issue a permit to a person to engage in an activity specified in the permit that would otherwise be prohibited by section 28. Application for permit (2) A person who wishes to engage in an activity that is prohibited under section 28 in an area situated in the jurisdiction of an authority may apply to the authority for a permit under this section. Same 281 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 19 (3) An application for a permit shall be made in accordance with the regulations and include such information as is required by regulation. Power to refuse, etc. (4) Subject to subsection (5), the authority may attach conditions to a permit or refuse to issue a permit if, in the authori ty’s opinion, (a) the activity is likely to create conditions or circumstances that, in the event of a natural hazard, might jeopardize the health or safety of persons or result in the damage or destruction of property; (b) the activity is likely to affect the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land; or (c) any circumstances as may be prescribed by regulation exist. Hearing (5) An authority shall not refuse an application for a permit or attach conditions to a permit unless the applicant for the permit has been given an opportunity to be heard by the authority. Additional criteria, renewable energy projects (6) Despite subsection (4), in the case of an application for a permit to engage in development related to a renewable energy project as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Green Energy Act, 2009, (a) the authority shall not refuse the permit unless it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to control pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches; and (b) the authority shall not impose conditions on the permit unless the conditions relate to controlling pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches. Reasons for decision (7) If the authority, after holding a hearing, refuses a permit or issues the permit subject to conditions, the authority shall give the applicant written reasons for the decision. Appeal (8) An applicant who has been refused a permit or who objects to conditions imposed on a permit may, within 30 days of receiving the reasons under subsection (7), appeal to the Minister who may, (a) refuse the permit; or (b) order the authority to issue the permit, with or without conditions. Definition (9) In this section, “pollution” means pollution as defined by regulation. Period of validity 28.2 A permit shall be valid for a period to be determined in accordance with the regulations. Cancellation of permits 28.3 (1) An authority may cancel a permit issued under section 28.1 if it is of the opinion that the conditions of the permit have not been met or that the circumstances that are prescribed by regulation exist. Notice (2) Before cancelling a permit, an authority shall give a notice of intent to cancel to the permit holder indicating that the permit will be cancelled on a date specified in the notice unless the holder requests a hearing under subsection (3). Request for hearing (3) Within 15 days of receiving a notice of intent to cancel a permit from the authority, the permit holder may submit a written request for a hearing to the authority. Hearing (4) The authority shall set a date for the hearing and hold the hearing within a reasonable time after receiving a request for a hearing. Power (5) After a hearing, the authority may confirm, rescind or vary the decision to cancel a permit. Delegation of power 28.4 An authority may delegate any of its powers relating to the issuance or cancellation of permits under this Act or the regulations, or to the holding of hearings in relation to the permits, to the authority’s executive committee or to any other person or body, subject to any limitations or requirements that may be prescribed by regulation. 26 The Act is amended by adding the following section: Regulations: activities affecting natural resources 28.5 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to activities that may impact the 282 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 20 conservation, restoration, development or management of natural resources and that may be carried out in the areas of jurisdiction of authorities, including regulations, (a) identifying activities that have or may have an impact on the conservation, restoration, development or management of natural resources for the purposes of the regulation; (b) regulating those activities; (c) prohibiting those activities or requiring that a person obtain a permit from the relevant authority to engage in the activities in the authority’s area of jurisdiction. Same (2) A regulation under clause (1) (c) that requires that a person obtain a permit from the relevant authority to engage in an activity described in subsection (1) may, (a) provide for applications to be made to an authority for the permit and specify the manner, content and form of the application; (b) provide for the issuance, expiration, renewal and cancellation of a permit; (c) require hearings in relation to any matter referred to in clauses (a) and (b) and specify the person before whom, or the body before which, the matter shall be heard, provide for notices and other procedural matters relating to the hearing and provide for an appeal from any decision. Same (3) A regulation made under this section may be limited in its application to one or more authorities or activities. 28. (1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction, (a) restricting and regulating the use of water in or from rivers, streams, inland lakes, ponds, wetlands and natural or artificially constructed depressions in rivers or streams; (b) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetland; (c) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for development if, in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development; (d) providing for the appointment of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section or section 29; (e) providing for the appointment of persons to act as officers with all of the powers and duties of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Delegation of powers (2) A regulation made under subsection (1) may delegate any of the authority’s powers or duties under the regulation to the authority’s executive committee or to any other person or body, subject to any limitations and requirements that may be set out in the regulation. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Conditional permission (3) A regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) may provide for permission to be granted subject to conditions and for the cancellation of the permission if conditions are not met. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. References to maps (4) A regulation made under subsection (1) may refer to any area affected by the regulation by reference to one or more maps that are filed at the head office of the authority and are available for public review during normal office business hours. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Minister’s approval of development regulations (5) The Minister shall not approve a regulation made under clause (1) (c) unless the regulation applies only to areas that are, (a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to inland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazards; (b) river or stream valleys; 283 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 21 (c) hazardous lands; (d) wetlands; or (e) other areas where, in the opinion of the Minister, development should be prohibited or regulated or should require the permission of the authority. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Regulations by L.G. in C. governing content of authority’s regulations (6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the content of regulations made by authorities under subsection (1), including flood event standards and other standards that may be used, and setting out what must be included or excluded from regulations made by authorities under subsection (1). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Invalid regulation (7) A regulation made by an authority under subsection (1) that does not conform with the requirements of a regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6) is not valid. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Transition (8) Subject to subsection (9), if a regulation is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6), subsection (7) does not apply to a regulation that was previously made by an authority under subsection (1) until two years after the regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council comes into force. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Same (9) If a regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6) is amended by an amending regulation, subsection (7) does not apply, in respect of the amendment, to a regulation that was made by an authority under subsection (1) before the amending regulation, until such time as may be specified in the amending regulation. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Exceptions (10) No regulation made under subsection (1), (a) shall limit the use of water for domestic or livestock purposes; (b) shall interfere with any rights or powers conferred upon a municipality in respect of the use of water for municipal purposes; (c) shall interfere with any rights or powers of any board or commission that is performing its functions for or on behalf of the Government of Ontario; or (d) shall interfere with any rights or powers under the Electricity Act, 1998 or the Public Utilities Act. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (8); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Activities under the Aggregate Resources Act (11) A requirement for permission of an authority in a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) does not apply to an activity approved under the Aggregate Resources Act after the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Right to hearing (12) Permission required under a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) shall not be refused or granted subject to conditions unless the person requesting the permission has been given the opportunity to require a hearing before the authority or, if the authority so directs, before the authority’s executive committee. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Powers of authority (13) After holding a hearing under subsection (12), the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall, (a) refuse the permission; or (b) grant the permission, with or without conditions. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Grounds for refusing permission (13.1) If the permission that the person requests is for development related to a renewable energy project, as defined in section 1 of the Green Energy Act, 2009, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, 284 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 22 (a) shall not refuse the permission unless it is necessary to do so to control pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches; and (b) shall not impose conditions unless they relate to controlling pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches. 2009, c. 12, Sched. L, s. 2. Reasons for decision (14) If the authority or its executive committee, after holding a hearing, refuses permission or grants permission subject to conditions, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall give the person who requested permission written reasons for the decision. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Appeal (15) A person who has been refused permission or who objects to conditions imposed on a permission may, within 30 days of receiving the reasons under subsection (14), appeal to the Minister who may, (a) refuse the permission; or (b) grant the permission, with or without conditions. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Offence: contravening regulation (16) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under subsection (1) or the terms and conditions of a permission of an authority in a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12; 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (2). Limitation for proceeding (16.1) A proceeding with respect to an offence under subsection (16) shall not be commenced more than two years from the earliest of the day on which evidence of the offence is discovered or first comes to the attention of officers appointed under clause (1) (d) or persons appointed under clause (1) (e). 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (3). Orders (17) In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law, the court, upon making a conviction under subsection (16), may order the person convicted to, (a) remove, at that person’s expense, any development within such reasonable time as the court orders; and (b) rehabilitate any watercourse or wetland in the manner and within the time the court orders. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Non-compliance with order (18) If a person does not comply with an order made under subsection (17), the authority having jurisdiction may, in the case of a development, have it removed and, in the case of a watercourse or wetland, have it rehabilitated. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Liability for certain costs (19) The person convicted is liable for the cost of a removal or rehabilitation under subsection (18) and the amount is recoverable by the authority by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Powers of entry (20) An authority or an officer appointed under a regulation made under clause (1) (d) or (e) may enter private property, other than a dwelling or building, without the consent of the owner or occupier and without a warrant, if, (a) the entry is for the purpose of considering a request related to the property for permission that is required by a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c); or (b) the entry is for the purpose of enforcing a regulation made under clause (1) (a), (b) or (c) and the authority or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a contravention of the regulation is causing or is likely to cause significant environmental damage and that the entry is required to prevent or reduce the damage. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. 285 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 23 Time of entry (21) Subject to subsection (22), the power to enter property under subsection (20) may be exercised at any reasonable time. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Notice of entry (22) The power to enter property under subsection (20) shall not be exercised unless, (a) the authority or officer has given reasonable notice of the entry to the owner of the property and, if the occupier of the property is not the owner, to the occupier of the property; or (b) the authority or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that significant environmental damage is likely to be caused during the time that would be required to give notice under clause (a). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. No use of force (23) Subsection (20) does not authorize the use of force. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Offence: obstruction (24) Any person who prevents or obstructs an authority or officer from entering property under subsection (20) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Definitions (25) In this section, “development” means, (a) the construction, reconstruction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind, (b) any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential use of the building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure, (c) site grading, or (d) the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere; (“aménagement”) “hazardous land” means land that could be unsafe for development because of naturally occurring processes associated with flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or unstable soil or bedrock; (“terrain dangereux”) “pollution” means any deleterious physical substance or other contaminant that has the potential to be generated by development in an area to which a regulation made under clause (1) (c) applies; (“pollution”) “watercourse” means an identifiable depression in the ground in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs; (“cours d’eau”) “wetland” means land that, (a) is seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or has a water table close to or at its surface, (b) directly contributes to the hydrological function of a watershed through connection with a surface watercourse, (c) has hydric soils, the formation of which has been caused by the presence of abundant water, and (d) has vegetation dominated by hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants, the dominance of which has been favoured by the presence of abundant water, but does not include periodically soaked or wet land that is used for agricultural purposes and no longer exhibits a wetland characteristic referred to in clause (c) or (d). (“terre marécageuse”) 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. Transition (26) A regulation that was in force immediately before the day the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent and that was lawfully made under clause (1) (e) or (f) of this section as it read immediately before that day shall be deemed to have been lawfully made under clause (1) (c). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. 286 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 24 Regulations by authority re lands owned by it 29. (1) An authority may make regulations applicable to lands owned by the authority, (1) The Minister may make regulations with respect to land and other property owned by authorities including regulations (a) regulating and governing the use by the public of the lands and the works, vehicles, boats, services and things of the authority; (b) providing for the protection and preservation from damage of the property of the authority; (c) prescribing fees for the occupation and use of lands and works, vehicles, boats, recreational facilities and services; (d) prescribing permits designating privileges in connection with use of the lands or any part thereof and prescribing fees for permits; (e) regulating and governing vehicular and pedestrian traffic and prohibiting the use of any class of vehicle or classes of vehicles; (f) prohibiting or regulating and governing the erection, posting up or other display of notices, signs, sign boards and other advertising devices; (g) prescribing terms and conditions under which horses, dogs and other animals may be allowed on the lands or any part thereof; (h) subject to the Forest Fires Prevention Act and the regulations made thereunder, prohibiting or regulating and governing the use, setting and extinguishment of fires. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 29 (1); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (1). Regulations by L.G. in C. governing content of authority’s regulations (1.1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the content of regulations made under subsection (1), including the standards that may be used, and setting out what must be included or excluded from regulations made under subsection (1). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (2). (2) A regulation made under this section may be limited in its application to one or more authorities. Invalid regulation (1.2) A regulation made under subsection (1) that does not conform with the requirements of a regulation made under subsection (1.1) is not valid unless it has been approved by the Minister. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (2). Offence: contravening regulation (2) Every person who contravenes any regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 29 (2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (3). Regulations by authority: mandatory regulations 30. (1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority shall make regulations, (a) providing for the calling of meetings of the authority and prescribing the procedure at those meetings; (b) prescribing the powers and duties of the secretary-treasurer; (c) designating and empowering officers to sign contracts, agreements and other documents on behalf of the authority; and (d) delegating all or any of its powers to the executive committee except, (i) the termination of the services of the secretary-treasurer, (ii) the power to raise money, and (iii) the power to enter into contracts or agreements other than those contracts or agreements as are necessarily incidental to the works approved by the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 30 (1). Time for making regulations (2) Every authority shall make regulations under subsection (1) within one year after its establishment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 30 (2). Legislation Act, 2006 (3) Part III (Regulations) of the Legislation Act, 2006 does not apply to regulations made under this section. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 105. 287 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 25 Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 105 - 25/07/2007 Restriction on entry Appointment of officers 30 An authority may appoint officers for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the Act and the regulations. Entry without warrant 30.1 (1) An officer appointed by an authority under section 30 may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), enter any land situated in the authority’s area of jurisdiction for the purposes of determining compliance with subsection 28 (1), a regulation made under subsection 28 (3) or section 28.5 or with the conditions of a permit issued under section 28.1 or under a regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c). No entry to buildings (2) The power to enter land under subsection (1) does not authorize the entry into a dwelling or other building situated on t he land. Time of entry (3) The power to enter land under subsection (1) may be exercised at any reasonable time. Power upon entry (4) An officer who enters land under subsection (1) may do any of the following things: 1. Inspect any thing that is relevant to the inspection. 2. Conduct any tests, take any measurements, take any specimens or samples, set up any equipment and make any photographic or other records that may be relevant to the inspection. 3. Ask any questions that are relevant to the inspection to the occupant of the land. No use of force (5) Subsection (1) does not authorize the use of force. Experts, etc. (6) An officer who enters land under this section may be accompanied and assisted by any person with such knowledge, skills or expertise as may be required for the purposes of the inspection. Searches Search with warrant 30.2 (1) An officer may obtain a search warrant under Part VIII of the Provincial Offences Act in respect of an offence under this Act. Assistance (2) The search warrant may authorize any person specified in the warrant to accompany and assist the officer in the execution of the warrant. Search without warrant (3) If an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that there is something on land that will afford evidence of an offence under this Act but that the time required to obtain a warrant would lead to the loss, removal or destruction of the evidence, the officer may, without warrant, enter and search the land. No entry to buildings (4) The power to enter land under subsection (3) does not authorize the entry into a dwelling or other building situated on t he land. Stop order 30.3 (1) An officer appointed under section 30 may make an order requiring a person to stop engaging in or not to engage in an activity if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is engaging in the activity, has engaged in the activity or is about to engage in the activity and, as a result, is contravening, (a) subsection 28 (1) or a regulation made under subsection 28 (3) or under section 28.5; or (b) the conditions of a permit that was issued under section 28.1 or under a regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c). Information to be included in order (2) The order shall, (a) specify the provision that the officer believes is being, has been or is about to be contravened; (b) briefly describe the nature of the contravention and its location; and (c) state that a hearing on the order may be requested in accordance with this section. Service of order 288 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 26 (3) An order under this section shall be served personally or by registered mail addressed to the person against whom the order is made at the person’s last known address. Registered mail (4) An order served by registered mail shall be deemed to have been served on the fifth day after the day of mailing, unless the person served establishes that the person did not, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond the person’s control, receive the order until a later date. Effective date (5) An order under this section takes effect when it is served, or at such later time as is specified in the order. Right to hearing (6) A person who is served with an order under this section may request a hearing before the authority or, if the authority so directs, before the authority’s executive committee, by mailing or delivering to the authority, within 30 days after service of the order, a written request for a hearing that includes a statement of the reasons for requesting the hearing. Powers of authority (7) After holding a hearing, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall, (a) confirm the order; (b) amend the order; or (c) remove the order, with or without conditions. Reasons for decision (8) The authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall give the person who requested the hearing written reasons for the decision. Appeal (9) Within 30 days after receiving the reasons mentioned in subsection (8), the person who requested the hearing may appeal to the Minister and, after reviewing the submissions, the Minister may, (a) confirm the order; (b) amend the order; or (c) remove the order, with or without conditions. Offences 30.4 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence if he or she contravenes, (a) subsection 28 (1) or a regulation made under subsection 28 (3) or under section 28.5; (b) the conditions of a permit that was issued under section 28.1 or under a regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c); or (c) a stop order issued under section 30.3. Penalty (2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction, (a) in the case of an individual, (i) to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months, or to both, and (ii) to an additional fine of not more than $10,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues; and (b) in the case of a corporation, (i) to a fine of not more than $1,000,000, and (ii) to an additional fine of not more than $200,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues. Monetary benefit (3) Despite the maximum fines set out in clauses (2) (a) and (b), a court that convicts a person of an offence under clause (1) (a) or (b) may increase the fine it imposes on the person by an amount equal to the amount of the monetary benefit that was acquired by the person, or that accrued to the person, as a result of the commission of the offence. Contravening s. 29 regulations (4) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under section 29 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000. Obstruction of officer (5) Every person who prevents or obstructs an officer from entering land under section 30.1 or 30.2 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. Limitation period 30.5 A proceeding shall not be commenced with respect to an offence under subsection 30.4 (1), (4) or (5) more than two years after the day on which the offence first comes to the attention of an officer appointed under section 30. 289 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 27 Rehabilitation orders 30.6 (1) In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law, the court, upon convicting a person of an offence under clause 30.4 (1) (a) or (b), may order the convicted person to, (a) remove, at the convicted person’s expense, any development within such reasonable time as the court orders; and (b) take such actions as the court directs, within the time the court may specify, to repair or rehabilitate the damage that results from or is in any way connected to the commission of the offence. Non-compliance with order (2) If a person does not comply with an order made under subsection (1), the authority having jurisdiction may arrange for any removal, repair or rehabilitation that was required of a person under subsection (1) to be carried out. Liability for certain costs (3) The person to whom an order is made under subsection (1) is liable for the cost of any removal, repair or rehabilitation arranged by an authority under subsection (2), and the amount is recoverable by the authority by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. Restriction on entry 30.1 (1) An authority or an officer appointed under a regulation made under clause 28 (1) (d) or (e) shall not enter land without, (a) the consent of the owner of the land and, if the occupier of the land is not the owner, the consent of the occupier of the land; or (b) the authority of a warrant under the Provincial Offences Act. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 14. Exceptions (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to entry under clause 21 (1) (b) or subsection 28 (20). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 14. Expropriation 31. The Expropriations Act applies where land is expropriated by an authority or where land is injuriously affected by an authority in the exercise of its statutory powers. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 31. Restrictions on projects Crown land affected 32. (1) Where any land required for the carrying out of a project or a part thereof is Crown land, a plan and description of the land prepared and signed by an Ontario land surveyor and signed by the chair or vice-chair of the authority shall be deposited with the Minister, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (1). Interference with public work (2) Where a project or a part thereof may interfere with a public work of Ontario, the authority shall file with the Minister of Infrastructure a plan and description of the project or a part thereof together with a statement of the interference with the public work that may occur and a statement of the manner in which the authority proposes to remedy the interference, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister of Infrastructure. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (2); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (3); 2011, c. 9, Sched. 27, s. 22. Interference with highway (3) Where a project or a part thereof will interfere with a public road or highway, the authority shall file with the Minister of Transportation a plan and description of the project or a part thereof together with a statement of the interference with the public road or highway that will occur and a statement of the manner in which the authority proposes to remedy the interference, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister of Transportation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (3). Costs, how to be borne (4) The cost of rebuilding any road, highway, bridge, public work or any part thereof and the cost of any other work that any of the Ministers of the Crown may require to be done under this section shall be borne by the authority, except where an agreement providing for payment thereof in some other manner has been entered into with the Crown in right of Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (4); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (4). 290 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 28 Assessment of lands of authority 33 (1) Land vested in an authority, except works erected by an authority for the purposes of a project, is taxable for municipal purposes by levy under section 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001 or section 277 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be, upon the assessment and classification of such land determined in each year by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the land shall be assessed under the Assessment Act as if the works erected by the authority on the land had not been erected. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (1); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 8. Assessment of rented property (2) Despite subsection (1), section 18 of the Assessment Act applies with necessary modifications in respect of lands vested in an authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 33 (2). Notice (3) The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation shall deliver or mail to each authority concerned and to the clerk of each municipality in which any of the land is situated a notice setting out the assessment and the classification of the land in the municipality. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (2); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203. Reconsideration under Assessment Act (4) The authority may request a reconsideration under section 39.1 of the Assessment Act. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (3). Complaint to the Assessment Review Board (5) The authority or the municipality may appeal to the Assessment Review Board under section 40 of the Assessment Act and the last day for appealing is the day that is 90 days after the authority or the clerk of the municipality, as applicable, is notified. 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 19. Assessment Act to apply (6) The Assessment Act applies, with necessary modifications, with respect to a request for a reconsideration or an appeal. 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 19. (7) REPEALED: 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (3). Assessment for next year’s taxation (8) The assessment of land under subsection (1) shall be determined by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in each year for the purpose of taxation in the following year. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 33 (8); 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (4); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203. Cemetery lands 34. (1) Where the carrying out of a project will require the use of a cemetery or other place of interment of human remains, the authority shall acquire other suitable lands for the interment of the bodies contained in the cemetery or other place of interment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (1). Notice to plot owners (2) The authority shall forward a notice to the owner of each lot in the cemetery or other place of interment, but, if the owner or the owner’s whereabouts is unknown, the notice shall, wherever possible, be forwarded to some other person having an interest in the plot through relationship or otherwise to a deceased person buried therein. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (2). Publication of notice (3) The authority shall also cause a notice to be published once a week for at least three weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the locality where the cemetery or other place of interment is located, which notice shall state, (a) that the cemetery or other place of interment has been acquired for the purposes of the authority; (b) that other land, describing it, has been acquired by the authority for the purpose of reinterring the bodies; (c) that the authority will at its own expense proceed to remove the bodies from the cemetery or other place of interment to the lands acquired for reinterment at a time not less than one month after the forwarding or third publication of the notice, whichever is the later date; and 291 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 29 (d) that the owner of any plot in the cemetery or other place of interment, or any other person with the approval of the authority, may cause any body interred in the cemetery or other place of interment to be removed to any other place of interment at the expense of the owner or person if the owner or person obtains permission from the authority and effects the removal within one month from the forwarding or insertion of the notice, whichever is the later date, or before such later date as the authority determines. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (3). Removal of bodies (4) The authority has full power to cause the removal of any body from the cemetery or place of interment to any lands acquired under subsection (1) despite any other Act and to authorize the removal by any other person of the body for reinterment in any other cemetery or place of interment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (4). Removal of headstones (5) Where a body is removed and reinterred, any headstone or other stone shall be removed and re-erected at the place of reinterment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (5). Conveyance of lands for reinterment (6) The authority shall render land, including fences and buildings, acquired for the reinterment of bodies, in a fit and proper condition and shall convey the land to the owner of the cemetery or other place of interment from which the bodies were removed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (6). Right to use water power 35. (1) The authority has the right to use any water power created upon lands vested in it for its own uses. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5). Restriction on sale (2) REPEALED: 2006, c. 3, Sched. D, s. 1. Obligation to pay (3) Any person using water power created upon authority lands shall pay to the authority an annual reasonable compensation for the use of the water power. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5). Arbitration (3.1) Where the authority and a person described in subsection (3) are unable to agree on the amount of the annual compensation, the matter shall be arbitrated under the Arbitration Act, 1991. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5). Charge for power (4) Subject to review by the Minister of Natural Resources, an authority shall charge persons who at the time of the establishment of the authority are, or thereafter become, users of power derived by them from the use of the waters of the watershed for any additional power generated from increased head or flow due to the works undertaken by the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 35 (4); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (6). When section not to apply (5) This section does not apply to water power reserved to the Crown under the Public Lands Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 35 (5). Assent of electors not necessary 36. Where by this Act any power is conferred or duty imposed upon a municipality, or the council of a municipality, including a power or duty to raise money, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed by the council of the municipality without the assent of the electors. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 36. Payment to and spending by authority 37. 37 All money that is paid to an authority for specified purposes under this Act may be spent by the authority as it considers proper. proper. All money required by this Act to be raised for the purposes of an authority shall be paid to the authority, and the authority may spend money as it considers proper, except that no salary, expenses or allowances of any kind shall be paid to any of the members of the authority without the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 37. 292 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 30 Annual audit 38 (1) Every authority shall cause its accounts and transactions to be audited annually by a person licensed under the Publi c Accounting Act, 2004. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (1); 2004, c. 8, s. 46. Auditor (2) No person shall be appointed as auditor of an authority who is or during the preceding year was a member of the authority or who has or during the preceding year had any direct or indirect interest in any contract or any employment with the authority other than for services within his or her professional capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (2). Auditor’s report (3) An authority shall, upon receipt of the auditor’s report of the examination of its accounts and transactions, forthwith forward a copy of the report to each participating municipality and to the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (3). Grants 39. Grants may be made by the Minister to any authority out of the money appropriated therefor by the Legislature in accordance with such conditions and procedures as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 39. Regulations 40 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations defining any term that is used in this Act and that is not defined in this Act. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (4). Regulations, Lieutenant Governor in Council 40 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, (a) governing the composition of conservation authorities and prescribing additional requirements regarding the appointment and qualifications of members of conservation authorities; (b) governing advisory boards established under subsection 18 (2), including requiring authorities to establish one or more advisory boards and prescribing requirements with respect to the composition, functions, powers, duties, activities and procedures of any advisory board that is established; (c) governing programs and services provided by authorities under paragraph 1 of subsection 21.1 (1), requiring authorities to provide those programs and services and respecting standards and requirements applicable to those programs and services; (d) governing the apportionment of an authority’s capital costs in connection with a project for the purposes of section 25; (e) governing reviews under sections 26 and 27.1, including prescribing a body that may conduct such reviews instead of the Ontario Municipal Board or the Mining and Lands Commissioner, as the case may be; (f) governing the apportionment of an authority’s operating expenses for the purposes of s ection 27, prescribing expenses as operating expenses for the purposes of section 27, governing the amount that participating municipalities are required to pay under section 27, including the fixed amount that a participating municipality may be required to pay under subsection 27 (2), and restricting and prohibiting the apportionment of certain types of operating expenses; (g) defining any term that is used in this Act and that is not defined in this Act; (h) respecting anything that is necessary or advisable for the proper administration of this Act. Same (2) The standards and requirements established for programs and services in a regulation made under clause (1) (c) may include standards and requirements to mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through increasing resiliency. Regulations, Minister (3) The Minister may make regulations, (a) prescribing matters that may be the subject of by-laws made under clause 19.1 (1) (j); (b) respecting the amount of any fee that may be charged by an authority in relation to a program or service, including determining the manner in which the fee is calculated; (c) governing consultations that an authority must carry out for the purposes of subsection 21.1 (6); (d) governing the information that authorities must provide to the Minister under section 23.1, including the publication of that information; (e) governing the prohibitions set out in section 28, including, 293 For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 31 (i) prescribing the limits on river and stream valleys for the purposes of subparagraph 2 iii of subsection 28 (1), (ii) determining or specifying areas for the purposes of subparagraph 2 iv of subsection 28 (1), (iii) determining areas in which development should be prohibited or regulated for the purposes of subparagraph 2 v of subsection 28 (1), (iv) prescribing activities or types of activities to which the prohibitions set out in subsection 28 (1) do not apply and respecting the manner or circumstances in which the activities or types of activities may be carried out and any conditions or restrictions that apply to the activity or type of activity, (v) prescribing areas in which the prohibitions set out in subsection 28 (1) do not apply and respecting the manner or circumstances in which the activities may be carried out in such areas and any conditions or restrictions that apply to carrying out activities in such areas, (vi) defining “development activity”, “hazardous land”, “watercourse” and “wetland” for the purposes of section 28; (f) governing the issuance of permits under section 28.1, including applications for the permits, prescribing conditions that may be attached to a permit or circumstances in which a permit may be refused under subsection 28.1 (4) or cancelled under section 28.3 and respecting the period for which a permit is valid; (g) defining “pollution” for the purposes of the Act; (h) governing the delegation of powers by an authority under section 28.4 and prescribing any limitations or requirements related to the delegation. (2) Clause 40 (1) (e) of the Act, as enacted by subsection (1), is amended by striking out “Mining and Lands Commissioner” and substituting “Mining and Lands Tribunal”. 33 The Act is amended by adding the following section: Rolling incorporations 41 A regulation made under this Act that adopts a document by reference may adopt the document as it may be amended from time to time after the regulation is made. Commencement 34 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Schedule comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. (2) Sections 2, 13 and 16, subsections 19 (3) and 20 (2) and sections 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 32 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.______________ 294 Attachment 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS TRCA COMMENTS TRCA’s main recommendations to the Province in its September 9, 2016 comments are listed below with a corresponding response for each on if, and/or how, the recommendations are addressed in Schedule 4, Bill 139. Maintain the broad mandate of conservation authorities as currently outlined in the Act, but in any changes to the Act, recognize, validate and strengthen the important and diverse role conservation authorities play as local implementation agents of provincial and municipal objectives. Partially addressed. A purpose statement has been added to the Act that is similar to the existing broad “objects” of a CA currently in the Act (s. 20 (1)). The new purpose is broad so as to support and maintain CAs’ broad mandate. However, this achievement is tempered by CA programs and services being divided into three categories (new Section 21.1 (1)) with one category being mandatory, comprised of programs and services that will be required by regulation. Another positive is that these standards and requirements may include those for increasing resiliency to address climate change. Conserving our Future states on page 13: “The science-based, watershed management programs and services that conservation authorities provide will be increasingly required in the face of climate changes and the resulting vulnerabilities to biodiversity and natural resources in the province. The programs and services include those mandated by the Province, assigned by municipalities and developed by conservation authorities in response to local needs and priorities.” Establish a collective administration of the Act by the MNRF, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) that coordinates through an inter-agency liaison body with conservation authorities and municipalities to strengthen the important relationships conservation authorities have with these and other provincial ministries. Partially addressed. MNRF remains the sole administrator of the CA Act; however, Conserving Our Future states the intention of the Ministry to establish multi-ministry working groups to develop the regulations that would outline the requirements for the delivery of provincially mandatory programs and services of CAs. These regulations will be developed in consultation with municipalities, Indigenous communities, CAs, stakeholders and the public. As TRCA staff learns more about these working groups and the potential for municipal and CA participation, staff will keep the Authority informed. Amend section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act to supply sufficient tools for compliance with conservation authorities’ development regulations. Addressed. Enhanced compliance mechanisms have been added to the Act such as Stop Orders, Search without a Warrant, Orders to Comply and increased penalties for violations. 295 Establish a sustainable and equitable funding model that allows conservation authorities to optimize existing municipal funding and that provides the resources required to sustain the broad suite of conservation authority programs. Partially addressed. Funding is not directly addressed by the amendments however MNRF has indicated that the multi-ministry working group will be tasked with exploring options for increasing provincial funding. Conserving Our Future states that the adequacy of funding existing provincially mandated programs and services, as well as any new ones that may be prescribed by the Province in regulation, will be assessed. Additionally, opportunities to access new funding envelopes to help finance conservation authority programs and services will be identified through this process Support conservation authorities in continuing to strive for service excellence in all aspects of conservation authority programs and operations. Partially addressed. The Province will be establishing a multi-stakeholder Service Delivery Review Committee tasked with advising the ministry on ways to improve the establishment, tracking and achievement of service delivery standards and other roles as assigned. The committee would serve to replace the former Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee previously established to support the development and implementation of the ministry’s “Policies and Procedures for CA Plan Review and Permitting Activities” (MNR 2010). TRCA supports undertaking the modernization of administrative processes to reflect current best practices. However, as regulations are to be created about the charging of CA fees, this process must recognize the significant differences between political climates, financial capacity, watershed conditions, land use profiles and overall, the complexity of the challenges faced within each CA’s jurisdiction. Therefore, TRCA will need to be engaged in this process, together with municipalities, to understand the funding implications to TRCA's programs and services. 296 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A114/17 - 2016 A UDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Approval of Financial Statements. The 2016 audited financial statements are recommended for approval. (Budget/Audit Res.#C7/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT the transfer of funds from surplus to reserves in the amount of $2,030,000 as outlined below and reflected in Note 7, “Accumulated Surplus” to the financial statements (Attachment 1) be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the 2016 audited financial statements, as presented in Attachment 1 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 and Forestry, in accordance with subsection 38(3) of the Conservation Authorities Act. CARRIED __________________________________ RES.#A115/17 - 2018 PRELIMINARY BUDGET Update on the recommended 2018 preliminary municipal budget submissions. (Budget/Audit Res.#C8/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) 2018 preliminary municipal capital budget submissions for the regions of Peel and York, and the City of Toronto be consistent with the targets identified for TRCA in the 2017 budget cycle and that the target for the Durham preliminary capital budget be set at 2.5% over 2017 funding levels; THAT preliminary operating levy targets be set at: Durham 2.5%, Toronto 2.5%, Region of Peel 3.2% and Region of York at 3.9%; THAT the list of unfunded municipal projects included in TRCA’s “Unmet Needs List” be submitted to the municipalities for their consideration in 2018; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to submit the preliminary 2018 municipal estimates and multi-year funding requests to the City of Toronto, and the regional municipalities of Durham, Peel and York in accordance with their respective submission schedules. CARRIED __________________________________ 297 RES.#A116/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Poetry Living (The View II) Limited, CFN 57887. Acquisition of property located east of Pine Valley Drive and north of Major Mackenzie Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B46/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 13.7644 hectares (34.0125 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Pine Valley Drive and north of Major Mackenzie Drive, said land being Part of Lot 22, Concession 8 designated as Parts 29, 30 and 31 on draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Krcmar, Drawing Name 00-183MP11, dated January 20, 2017 in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Poetry Living (The View II) Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED __________________________________ RES.#A117/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Waterfront Component, Scarborough Sector Marcia Gray, CFN 56360. Acquisition of property located west of Morna Avenue and south of Guildwood Parkway, municipally known as 461 Guildwood Parkway, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Waterfront Component, Scarborough Sector. (Executive Res.#B47/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 0.06 hectares (0.14 acres), more or less, of land improved with a one storey single family residence, located west of Morna Avenue and south of Guildwood Parkway, said land being Part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 2413 being Part 5, Plan of Reference 64R-11987, City of Toronto, municipally known as 461 Guildwood Parkway, in the City of Toronto be purchased from Marcia Gray; 298 THAT the purchase price be $755,000.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; THAT acquisition by TRCA is conditional on all necessary funding being available; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED __________________________________ RES.#A118/17 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for a Stratified Permanent Easement Required for Access to Subsurface Infrastructure City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 57864. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a stratified permanent easement for access to City of Toronto subsurface infrastructure, located south of Graydon Hall Drive and west of Don Mills Road, municipally known as 1955 Don Mills Road, City of Toronto, North York Community Council Area, Don River watershed. (Executive Res.#B48/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a stratified permanent easement for access to subsurface infrastructure, located south of Graydon Hall Drive and west of Don Mills Road, municipally known as 1955 Don Mills Road, City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; 299 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.015 hectares (0.04 acres), more or less, be granted to the City of Toronto, said land being Parcel F-3, Section M960 Firstly: Pt Blks F & G, Plan 66M960 as closed by By-Law 33-80, being Parts 5, 6 & 7 66R11579; Subject to Easement in Favour of The Corporation of the Township of North York over Part 6 Plan 66R-11579 as in A100497; Secondly: Part Blks F & G on Plan 66M-960 as Parts 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 Plan 66R-1159; Subject To Easement in Favour of the Corporation of the Township of North York over Part 9, Plan 66R-1159 As In A100497, as shown on Parts 14, 15, 16 on Draft Plan created by J.D. Barnes under Ref. No. 13-15-012-02 on April 21, 2017, Township of York/North York; City of Toronto, be conveyed to the City of Toronto; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs are to be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of City of Toronto prior to any disturbance of TRCA lands; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by any proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED __________________________________ RES.#A119/17 - REGION OF PEEL Requirement from the Region of Peel for Conveyance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned Lands and a Permanent Easement Required for Road Widening and Associated Traffic Light Infrastructure City of Brampton, Region of Peel, Humber River Watershed, CFN 57971. As part of the redevelopment of the Claireville Water Park (Site Plan Revision File: SP16-063-000) the Region of Peel requires the granting of a permanent easement and conveyance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned lands, located east of Finch Avenue and south of Steeles Avenue, in the City of Brampton, Region of Peel, for the future widening of Finch Avenue (Regional Road 2) and associated traffic light infrastructure, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B49/17) 300 Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been requested to grant a permanent easement and convey lands east of Finch Avenue, south of Steeles Avenue, in the City of Brampton, Region of Peel, to the Region of Peel for the future widening of Finch Avenue and associated traffic light infrastructure, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Region of Peel in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA-owned land containing 0.1657 hectares (0.4094 acres), more or less, required for the future widening of Finch Avenue, including a 0.3m reserve, said land being Part of Lots 15, Concession 9, East of Hurontario Street, and designated as Parts 1 to 4, and 6 to 14 inclusive, on the Draft Plan of Survey, prepared by NA Geomatics Inc, File No. 16-7082-CH1, be conveyed to the Region of Peel; THAT a permanent easement containing 0.0476 hectares (0.1176 acres), more or less, be granted to the Region of Peel for traffic light infrastructure, said land being Part of Lots 14 and 15, Concession 9, East of Hurontario Street, and designated as Part 5 on the Draft Plan of Survey, prepared by NA Geomatics Inc, File No. 16-7082-CH1; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs are to be paid by TRCA; THAT said conveyance and grant of the permanent easement be subject to approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED __________________________________ RES.#A120/17 - LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION PROJECT Design Build of Automated Gate Entry and Revenue Tracking System. Award of Contract #10003420 to complete engineering and construction services for an automated gate entry and revenue tracking system for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project, in the City of Mississauga. (Executive Res.#B50/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan 301 THAT Contract #10003420 to complete engineering and construction services for an Automated Gate Entry and Revenue Tracking System for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project, in the City of Mississauga be awarded to Precise ParkLink inc. at a total cost not to exceed $544,751.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED __________________________________ RES.#A121/17 - CITY OF TORONTO AND THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR RIDERS WITH DISABILITIES Request for Licence Agreement 4777 Dufferin Street, G. Ross Lord Park, City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN24311. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to enter into a 20-year Licence Agreement with the Community Association for Riders with Disabilities, located in G. Ross Lord Park, City of Toronto. (Executive Res.#B51/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS certain lands owned by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) situate in G. Ross Lord Park in the City of Toronto have been turned over to the City of Toronto for management under the terms of an agreement between the City of Toronto and TRCA dated June 14, 1961; WHEREAS the Community Association for Riders with Disabilities (CARD) has had an agreement with the City of Toronto at this location since 1979 and has requested from the City of Toronto an additional 20-year license agreement; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA concur with the City of Toronto entering into a Licence Agreement with CARD for a term of 20 years commencing on September 1, 2020 and ending on August 31, 2040; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED __________________________________ 302 Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A122/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Section II item 10.2.1 – Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Guideline Document, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/17, held on June 9, 2017, be received. CARRIED __________________________________ 303 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A123/17 - FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Flood Risk Management current initiatives and future priorities. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: David Barrow THAT the Flood Risk Management Overview report be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Engineering Services section plays a keystone role in fulfilling TRCA’s mandate to manage our regional water resources for current and future generations. Specifically, Engineering Services leads the strategic plan objectives to reduce or eliminate existing flood risks within the TRCA jurisdiction, and to minimize or eliminate the impact of new development and urban intensification on water quality, erosion and flood risk. Regulatory policy, planning, and site design are key components of achieving flood management and resilience solutions. Thus, the Water Resources team works together with Planning and Development to reduce risk by ensuring that development and infrastructure projects are built in harmony with the hazard management principles of the Living City Policies. The Capital Projects team works to reduce flood risk through remedial mitigation projects, and also ensures the continued delivery of high-quality floodplain mapping, along with the hydrologic and hydraulic modelling that support it. Another cornerstone of flood management is the suite of dams, channels and berms that make up TRCA’s flood control infrastructure, as reported to the Authority in Resolution #A187/16 approved at Authority Meeting #9/16, held on November 18, 2016. The Flood Infrastructure and Hydrometrics team manages this infrastructure, and also ensures the operation of the rainfall and stream gauge network that provides critical real-time and historical information to enable data-driven decision making. Finally, the Flood Risk Management team works to reduce existing flood risk to people and property by undertaking initiatives throughout the cycle of emergency management – from risk assessment to support preventative measures, to preparedness planning and outreach with municipal partners, through Flood Forecasting and Warning during flood events, to flood event documentation and analysis after the storm. The following report highlights the Flood Risk Management key accomplishments of 2016, current initiatives for 2017, and future priorities for 2018. Objectives of Flood Risk Management: 1. Reduce or eliminate existing flood risks within the TRCA jurisdiction; 2. Strive to minimize the impact to communities and protect people and property from riverine flood risks, to the extent possible; 3. Fulfil TRCA’s legislated mandate and delegated responsibilities; 4. Build awareness of what Flood Risk Management does. Strategies to achieve those objectives: A. Advance knowledge of flood risk; B. Disseminate/document flood risk; C. Facilitate the implementation of flood mitigation projects; 304 D. Operate a state-of-the-art Flood Forecasting and Warning program; E. Work with municipalities to enhance flood emergency response capacity; F. Teach people how to prepare/respond to flooding. The above strategies are grouped into thematic areas, described together with their highlights for 2016 and 2017 below. Flood Risk Assessment Understanding what is at stake when we flood is critical. Leveraging matching funds through successful applications to the National Disaster Mitigation Program, the Flood Risk Management team is currently updating the database of structures and roads (Flood Vulnerable Areas, or FVAs) within the floodplain with the help of GIS. This database is a key component of the Flood Risk Assessment process, which layers hazard information (TRCA’s floodplain mapping) with exposure and vulnerability information, to help quantify and communicate flood risk in a geospatial format. This project incorporates new methodologies recognized as national best practices in flood damage estimation and will provide valuable data for further analysis to allow remediation and mitigation efforts to be focused where maximal benefits will be realized. A key component of this project was the acquisition of high-resolution LiDAR data, which has proven to be crucial in the creation of flood response maps for the flooding currently being experienced due to high levels on Lake Ontario. The updated Risk Assessments will be used to re-prioritize Flood Vulnerable Area clusters identified in the Remedial Capital Works and Flood Protection Strategy. Preparedness through Strong Partnerships Ultimately, TRCA serves partner municipalities and the people that live within them. Flood Risk Management continued to build ever stronger relationships with partners and the communities TRCA serves, through workshops, conference presentations and convening working groups to facilitate cross-training. In 2016 and 2017, Flood Risk Management: Hosted the annual Floods Happen workshop, where attendees from over 25 different organizations came to exchange knowledge and experience to better prepare for flooding; the 2017 workshop featured speakers involved in the flood forecasting and warning for the South Carolina and Texas flood events of 2016. Further cemented relationships with the emergency management and operational staff of partner municipalities: Presented, with Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, at York Region Emergency Management Workshop; Together with Credit Valley Conservation, engaged with our Peel Region partners at their Community Emergency Management Coordinator seasonal meeting and met with the City of Mississauga Works to develop flood specific operations plans; Attended Durham Region Emergency Management Symposium and worked on the development of a Risk Specific Plan for flooding; Continued our participation in the Toronto Emergency Management Working Group; revised the Risk Specific Plan for Flooding and updated the flood risk ranking for their Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment program; Advanced the state of practice among conservation authorities through presentations at the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee fall conference and at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Technical Transfer workshop. Strengthened TRCA’s relationship with Environment Canada through face-to-face cross-training, and presentations at the Great Lakes Operational Meteorology Workshop and Change of Season workshops. 305 Reconvened the Lower Don Transportation Working Group to present the final report outlining operational roles and responsibilities, and to present the results of the Lower Don 1D-2D Floodplain mapping update, which better illustrates flooding mechanisms in this critical area and provides a baseline to test remediation options against. Continued representation at the GTA Flood Forecasting and Warning group to share advancements and lessons learned. Continued TRCA engagement with academic, research and industry partners also working in flood risk reduction (FloodNet, Insurance Bureau of Canada, Partners for Action, Canada Hazus User Group). Presented at the Ontario Climate Change Consortium technical meeting. Delivered guest lectures at Ryerson University, York University, Bayview Rotary Club, the Ontario Science Centre, among others. Flood Forecasting, Warning and Contingency Planning In order to fulfill TRCA’s delegated responsibility from the Province of Ontario and to further achieve the goals of the Natural Hazards Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, section 3.1 of the Planning Act, TRCA operates a robust Flood Forecasting and Warning program. The program is operated in accordance with the requirements presented in the “Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Implementation Guidelines”, Ministry of Natural Resources, August 2008. The GTA Flood Standards were adopted by Resolution #A130/03 at Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003. An experienced team of Flood Duty Officers (FDOs) are on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year. FDOs monitor weather and watershed information as conditions dictate, and use computer models and hydrology expertise to determine if it is necessary to issue or escalate flood warning messages. They provide advice and guidance to municipal partners, other levels of government, and infrastructure operators regarding expected impacts, and provide public messaging. When warranted, they will direct the operation of TRCA’s flood control infrastructure. 2016 saw a focus on documenting the knowledge and experience of Flood Duty Officers, formalizing processes, and overhauling operational manuals. Specifically, staff undertook a major update of the Flood Duty Officer manual, and made minor updates to the RiverWatch operations manual and the Flood Contingency Plan. These improvements help to ensure clarity, consistency and knowledge transfer even in the case of staff turnover. Monthly training sessions and an annual table-top exercise are standing elements of the workplan for the Flood Forecasting and Warning Program. Although staff continuously tweaks processes to take advantage of advancements in weather modelling, a key focus for 2018 will be large-scale improvements to TRCA’s now-casting and short term forecasting hydrologic models, and the development of more robust decision support systems, building on research partnerships with FloodNet and utilizing funding confirmed by MNRF. TRCA roles, responsibilities and resources with respect to flood preparedness and response are documented in the Flood Contingency Plan, which is updated annually and distributed to TRCA municipal partners. While municipalities undertake the operational response to emergencies, including flooding, conservation authorities support the municipal response by providing technical advice, information and watershed expertise. In order to optimize TRCA’s function for partners during flood events, TRCA maintains an Emergency Operations Centre, and employs Incident Management System principles to ensure inter-operability with other agencies in times of crisis. A key accomplishment in 2016 was the roll-out of the updated Incident Management System (IMS) structure for flood emergencies. This system outlines the various roles and responsibilities and 306 support functions that staff across TRCA would fulfill to support response to a flood event. Over 28 unique positions were developed and over 40 staff were trained to fill them, should the need arise. Thanks to the organization-wide roll-out of this system last year, a modified version of it is currently being used to streamline communications and facilitate an effective response during the flooding and erosion currently being experienced due to high levels on Lake Ontario. An active priority project for 2017 is the updating of Emergency Preparedness Plans for the major dams that TRCA owns and operates, ensuring that TRCA meets industry best practices outlined in the Canadian Dam Association guidelines. The update for G. Ross Lord Dam began in 2016, in collaboration with the City of Toronto, and is nearing completion. Currently underway are the updates for Claireville and Milne Dam, and the draft for Stouffville Dam will begin in fall 2017. Education and Outreach Pro-actively educating the public about flood risk now helps ensure that TRCA communications in times of crisis are better understood. In the spirit of providing access to data, and in light of the evolving landscape of flood insurance, staff created web tools that make it easier for the general public to understand about flooding and the floodplain, prepare themselves, and stay informed. TRCA continues to raise awareness about flood risks and personal preparedness by partnering in Emergency Preparedness Week outreach events, Water Festivals and through social media campaigns. In 2016, TRCA’s Flood Risk Management staff participated in events with an audience reach of over 12,000 people in two months. The @TRCA_Flood Twitter account earned 234,500 impressions in 2016, and the number of social media visits to www.trcagauging.ca increased by 260%. A priority project for 2017 is to enhance collaboration with TRCA’s Education section and specifically, to create a curriculum around flood safety and emergency preparedness. Recognizing the need from municipal partners to foster a resilient population through education, TRCA is leveraging our education delivery capacity to create a course, with input from partners, in line with the Ontario Specialist High Skills Major program, the delivery of which can be a source of revenue to TRCA. Data Management, Technology, and Flood Event Documentation The current redevelopment of TRCA’s Flood Monitoring website as approved by Resolution #A36/17, at Authority Meeting #2/17, held on March 27, 2017, is a key priority in improving the delivery of critical flood related information from TRCA’s real-time gauging network. Following another successful application to the National Disaster Mitigation Program, matching funds have been secured to further expand the real-time gauging network in 2017 and 2018. Also ongoing is the improvement of how TRCA collects field information during flood events and high water marks afterwards, leveraging mobile technology tools such as Survey 123 to help increase TRCA’s situational awareness and streamline work. 2017 Weather Highlights In 2016, the Flood Forecasting and Warning program issued nine Water Safety Watershed Conditions Statements, six Flood Outlook Watershed Conditions Statements, and one Flood Watch. No major riverine flooding was experienced in 2016. 307 2017 has thus-far proven to be a much wetter year. In addition to having much of the winter precipitation within TRCA’s jurisdiction fall as rain, the months of April and May have been exceptionally rainy, particularly for the Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence basin at large. This exacerbated spring freshet conditions resulted in severe flooding along the Ottawa River and St. Lawrence River. Concurrently, water levels on Lake Ontario rose, reaching record levels in early May. The risk of riverine flooding in TRCA’s relatively small watersheds is based on each immediate precipitation event, with water levels in rivers returning to seasonal levels within a day or two of each storm. By contrast, Lake Ontario flooding occurs on a much longer timescale and is impacted by the volumes of precipitation totals over months, and over a much larger drainage basin area. The management of water levels in Lake Ontario is under the jurisdiction of the International Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Board, which is part of the International Joint Commission. Environment Canada and Climate Change is the federal agency representing Canada on the board. While conservation authority hazard regulation and shoreline protection projects have limited exposure to flood and erosion risk along the shoreline, the levels experienced in 2017 exceed the previous 100-year lake level. Flood risks are not only related to elevated static lake levels; prolonged high lake levels combined with winds from southerly directions increase the damage potential due to storm surge and wave uprush. Flooding and erosion have occurred in numerous locations along the shoreline, including areas that were developed prior to or without regulation. Various groups within TRCA have been working together with TRCA’s municipal partners in responding to the flooding and erosion. Furthermore, high lake levels have resulted in backwater at the mouths of rivers, reducing the capacity of river channels and compounding potential riverine flood risks at the very downstream ends of rivers, as has been the concern with several rainfall events in the past month. Thus-far in 2017, TRCA’s Flood Forecasting and Warning program has issued 13 Water Safety Statements, two Flood Outlook Statements, three Flood Watches and one Shoreline Hazard Warning, as well as a statement on Lake Ontario related flooding that continues to remain in place since April. Lake levels are expected to slowly decline over the remainder of the summer down to more seasonal levels, but are expected to remain above average levels though the fall. Summary The Flood Risk Management group, together with the rest of Engineering Services, fulfil one of TRCA’s foundational roles, working to reduce or eliminate existing flood risks within the TRCA jurisdiction, and to minimize or eliminate the impact of new development and urban intensification on water quality, erosion and flood risk. TRCA will continue to bolster the resilience of the region in the face of flood risks, a hazard whose potential is expected to increase with the changing climate, by leveraging advancements in technology and opportunities for partnership. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds have been identified in the 2017 Operating Budget from TRCA’s municipal funding partners (accounts 115-60 and 115-62) for general program operations. Municipal capital funds for specific projects in 2017 and 2018 are identified within the Toronto, Peel, York and Durham budgets. Details on the National Disaster Mitigation Program funding can be found in Resolution #A109/16 from Authority Meeting #6/16, held on July 22, 2016. Report prepared by: Rehana Rajabali, extension 5220 Emails: rrajabali@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rehana Rajabali, extension 5220, Sameer Dhalla, extension 5350 Emails: rrajabali@trca.on.ca, sdhalla@trca.on.ca Date: June 2, 2017 308 RES.#A124/17 - FOUR UPDATED PROVINCIAL PLANS Providing a summary and initial staff observations of the four updated provincial plans, as released by the Province of Ontario on May 18, 2017. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT the staff report on the final updates to the Four Provincial Plans be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND On February 27, 2015, the Province initiated a coordinated review of the Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. An Advisory Panel led by Mr. David Crombie was appointed to coordinate this review and recommend plan amendments. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff provided comments in response to questions posed by the Province on May 28, 2015, as approved by Resolution #A99/15 at Authority Meeting #6/15. The Advisory Panel provided recommendations to the Province on December 7, 2015 through a report entitled, “Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 2015-2041”. TRCA staff reported on these recommendations at Authority Meeting #11/15, as approved by Resolution #A245/15. Provincial staff assessed the Advisory Panel’s report and formulated amended plans on May 10, 2016, for further consultation. TRCA staff summarized the key themes of the amended plans and identified important changes warranting additional analysis prior to the issuance of formal comments, as approved by Resolution #A119/16 at Authority Meeting #6/16. On September 23, 2016, TRCA staff provided comments in response to the final round of the Province’s coordinated review, as approved at Authority Meeting #7/16 by Resolution #140/16. TRCA staff generally supported the proposed changes and noted that many of our previous comments were reflected in the enhanced plans, including: stronger requirements for watershed planning; new policy language promoting a “systems approach” to natural heritage and water resource planning; harmonized terminology across the Plans and with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS); increased support for agricultural lands and related rural uses; stronger policy requirements for integrating infrastructure and land use planning; new policies to help manage large-scale fill activities; new policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change; and, new policies to incorporate green infrastructure and low impact development (LID). TRCA staff also made recommendations staff believed, if implemented, would further strengthen and support the progressive intent of the Plans, including: adding new policies to require the completion of an “urban master environmental servicing plan” for areas of major urban redevelopment; revising the Growth Plan’s Climate Change policies to require official plan (OP) implementation and tie-back to the many climate change references throughout the Plans; harmonizing the definition, scope, and integration of watershed and subwatershed plans with clear goals to protect, enhance, and restore natural heritage and water resource systems; and, make the role conservation authorities (CAs) have in implementing the Plans more apparent. On May 18, 2017, the Ontario government announced the completion of their coordinated land use review. The result is four amended plans that have been synthesized into a cohesive regional land use planning framework. The Niagara Escarpment Plan comes into effect on June 1, 2017, while the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan, and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan take effect on July 1, 2017. 309 Content of the Updated Plans By virtue of the updated plans, the Province has demonstrated a coordinated effort to harmonize land use policies, synchronize language and terminology, and align the Plans within Ontario’s broader policy framework to better coordinate infrastructure planning with land use planning. The enriched policy direction correlates directly with TRCA’s land use planning, watershed management and regulatory roles and aligns well with TRCA’s The Living City Policies (as approved by the Authority in November, 2014). The foremost changes have been articulated by the Province through eight themes. TRCA staff has highlighted changes of particular relevance to TRCA below, in accordance with each corresponding theme. Building Complete Communities The updated plans seek to build “complete communities” by increasing intensification within built-up areas, particularly around transit and urban growth centres, while also providing greater protection for agricultural land and natural heritage features. Key changes aimed at achieving this objective include: Intensification targets for new residential development occurring annually in existing built-up areas will increase to 60% as of 2031, with an interim target of 50% to be achieved from 2022; Density targets of 80 combined residents and jobs per hectare for designated greenfield areas will apply to lands designated in the future and are to be achieved by 2031, with an interim target of 60 residents and jobs per hectare for current designated greenfield areas at 2022; Municipal accommodation of interim intensification and density targets is to occur through the next municipal comprehensive review (2022), though alternative targets may be requested in unique circumstances; Specific density targets are required for major transit station areas along priority transit corridors; Stronger environmental and planning criteria added to assess the feasibility of expanding settlement areas, including water/wastewater and stormwater management (SWM) master plans, informed by watershed planning. Supporting Agriculture The new plans emphasize the importance of the agricultural system as a key contributor to the quality of life and economic well-being of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The plans seek to protect and enhance the agricultural sector and land base more effectively through the following changes: The Province will map an Agricultural System across the GGH; Municipalities are required to minimize impacts on the Agricultural System; The types of uses permitted in prime agricultural areas align with the PPS, 2014 (e.g., on-farm diversified uses such as home industries and agri-tourism); Clarifying setback requirements from key natural heritage features (KNHFs) and key hydrologic features (KHFs) for certain agricultural uses and related buildings/structures on the Oak Ridges Moraine (i.e. permitted within the minimum vegetation protection zone of features but not within the features); Clarifying requirements for exempting new structures associated with certain agricultural and related uses from undertaking natural heritage or hydrologic evaluations, while ensuring ecological impacts are minimized. Protecting Natural Heritage and Water Through the updated plans, natural heritage, hydrologic and landform features and systems may be further protected, maintained and improved, particularly within areas not currently governed by the Greenbelt by: 310 Requiring municipalities, partnering with CAs, to undertake watershed planning to protect, improve or restore water quality and quantity within watersheds; Requiring the Province to map a Natural Heritage System (NHS) for lands outside municipal settlement areas; Requiring municipalities to identify and protect KHFs and key hydrologic areas (KHAs) in their OPs; Providing Greenbelt-level protection for the NHS, KNHFs, KHFs and KHAs outside settlement areas; Directing municipalities to avoid settlement area expansion into KHAs and the NHS, where possible; Encouraging municipalities to develop excess soil re-use strategies and requiring policies for best management practices for excess soil and fill received during development or site alteration, to be incorporated into municipal OPs. Growing the Greenbelt New policies in the Greenbelt Plan describe ways in which the Greenbelt has and will be expanded by: Including 21 major river valleys and seven associated coastal wetlands as designated urban river valleys (URVs). Within TRCA’s jurisdiction, this includes Duffins and Carruthers creeks (including their coastal wetlands), as well as additional Rouge tributaries, Don and Humber rivers and Etobicoke creek; Exploring opportunities for the Province to grow the Greenbelt and consider requests from municipalities to increase the Greenbelt including within URVs. Addressing Climate Change The updated plans recognize the importance of addressing climate change and include new policy directions aimed at more effectively responding to and mitigating its effects by: Requiring municipalities to implement climate change policies in their OPs that align with the Ontario Climate Change Strategy, 2015, and Climate Change Action Plan, 2016; Requiring SWM plans in settlement areas and for major development; Requiring municipalities to assess infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities caused by the impacts of climate change when planning or replacing infrastructure and identify options for further enhancing resiliency; Encouraging the use of green infrastructure and LID to reduce risks and costs associated with extreme weather events. Integrating Infrastructure The updated plans seek to better integrate infrastructure and land use planning by: Requiring infrastructure corridors to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on KNHFs, KHFs and KHAs; Requiring water and wastewater master plans to demonstrate no negative impact on water quality and quantity and assimilative capacity when expanding water and wastewater services; Requiring comprehensive SWM studies before expanding settlement boundaries or permitting major development. 311 Improving Plan Implementation The plans were established at various times, have different geographies, and contain distinct but complementary goals. The Province has integrated and aligned the plans with the local and provincial planning frameworks (e.g., PPS, Source Water Protection, Big Move, etc.) by making policies consistent, cross-pollinating terminology, harmonizing themes and synchronizing municipal implementation timelines. In support of this objective, the following changes were undertaken: New guidance materials and supplementary direction will be produced by the Province to implement watershed planning, SWM and greenhouse gas inventories; Clarification that intensification and density targets would not require or enable growth beyond what is permitted under the PPS for special policy areas and other "hazardous lands"; Upper- and single-tier municipalities will undertake integrated planning to manage forecasted growth through a municipal comprehensive review, to be approved by the Province, and provide direction to lower-tier municipalities. Measuring Performance, Promoting Awareness and Increasing Engagement Accurate data, reliable information and widespread feedback are essential to ensuring provincial policy objectives are implemented effectively and intended goals can be achieved. To promote awareness of the proposed changes, measure their ongoing performance and increase engagement from stakeholders, the Province has committed to: Establishing a comprehensive monitoring program to measure the effectiveness of the Plans; Requiring municipalities and CAs to provide data for monitoring and performance indicators; Ensuring all Schedules are reviewed (and potentially updated) every five years after the Plans take effect. RATIONALE To help assess the degree to which TRCA’s previous recommendations have been incorporated into the updated plans, staff undertook a comparative evaluation of the significant changes. As evidenced in the eight themes above, the majority of the positive changes found in the 2016 proposed amendments remain in the 2017 updated plans. These areas include: Recognizing the value of, and strengthening the requirements for watershed planning to ensure that growth occurs in an environmentally sustainable manner; Adding KHAs into the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan, a new class of features to be identified, managed and protected as part of the water resource system; Harmonization of terminology; Increased support for agricultural lands and related rural uses; Strengthened policy requirements for integrating infrastructure and land use planning; Addition of policies to help manage excess soil generated and fill received during development or site alteration; Addition of policies for the use of green infrastructure and LID techniques; and, Recognition of the need and direction to be planning for climate change adaptation and mitigation. TRCA has and continues to demonstrate expertise and exhibit leadership in these areas, ideally situating TRCA to assist partnering municipalities and stakeholders implement the amended plans. 312 Although a number of refinements were made, most appear to be minor adjustments to further clarify policy direction and harmonize policy language. Based on TRCA staff’s initial analysis, the principal recommendations outlined in TRCA’s September 23, 2016 comment letter to the Province appear to have been considered and implemented to varying degrees in the updated plans. The following represents the primary changes of interest that TRCA staff has presently identified. Climate Change The Climate Change section of the Growth Plan (4.2.10) has been expanded and enhanced to reference related climate change policies in the updated plans and align with the Ontario Climate Change Strategy, 2015, and Climate Change Action Plan, 2016. Upper-and single-tier municipalities are now required: to develop OP policies that protect the NHS, water resource system and agricultural land base; identify and protect hydrologic features and areas; acknowledge the importance of watershed planning; assess and address infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities from climate change; undertake SWM planning to assess the impacts of extreme weather events and utilize green infrastructure and LIDs; support the achievement of complete communities; reduce dependence on the automobile by supporting planned transit and active transportation; support a culture of conservation; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience. Given the importance the Province has and continues to place on climate change adaptation and mitigation, this noteworthy policy refinement further strengthens provincial messaging around climate change and highlights the strong linkages between climate change resiliency and watershed planning. Watershed Planning and Subwatershed Planning The definitions of “watershed planning” and “subwatershed plan” are significantly more robust. TRCA staff generally welcomes this refinement as well as the corresponding modifications to related policies. More detailed description of the objectives of watershed and subwatershed planning are included to help clarify intended goals, improve implementation, and to better illustrate the scope of the full adaptive cycle of integrated watershed planning. The Plans now acknowledge that watershed planning also includes watershed characterization; utilizes scenario modelling to evaluate the impacts of forecasted growth and servicing options, and mitigation measures; provides a framework for establishing goals, objectives and direction for the protection of water resources; and requires the use of environmental best practice programs and performance measures. In addition, subwatershed plans are now encouraged to reflect and refine the findings of watershed planning in the evaluation of the impacts of any potential or proposed land uses; identify natural features, areas, and related hydrologic functions and associated linkages; and, establish intended actions, thresholds, targets and best management practices for development, water and wastewater servicing, SWM, and mitigating impacts related to severe weather events. These changes are important to TRCA staff involved in land use planning processes who rely on identifiable watershed and subwatershed goals, objectives and targets to measure the effectiveness of proposed land development and infrastructure plans and improve upon plan deficiencies. The term “watershed plans” has been removed from the Plans while the scope of a subwatershed plan has been narrowed from being undertaken at a “broader scale” to “smaller drainage areas”. Because watershed planning can be done without producing a “watershed plan”, per se, additional flexibility regarding the scope and scale required of watershed planning may be available for some municipalities in certain instances. As an example, Growth Plan policy criteria to justify settlement area boundary expansion now requires “watershed planning” to demonstrate 313 that expansion will not negatively impact the water resource system, where previously a “subwatershed plan” was required. Questions remain pertaining to how the terms “watershed planning” and “subwatershed plans” will be interpreted, as well as the scope of consultation, watershed characterization, future impacts analysis, documentation, monitoring and evaluation processes that comprise watershed and subwatershed planning, as historically defined and practiced. Additional important details remain to be clarified, such as the appropriate frequency for renewing watershed plans as well as the roles and responsibilities of various organizations and stakeholders in planning, implementation, and compliance. However, TRCA will be one of four CAs represented in a “Watershed Engagement Group” convened by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that will provide input and advice into the development of a Watershed Planning Guidance document by those ministries that will support the implementation of these new policies. Excess Soil and Fill Improved policy language regarding the development of strategies to manage excess soil and fill are in keeping with the Province’s proposed Excess Soil Management Policy Framework and regulation that would require soil management plans for source sites of excess soil and establish rules for receiving sites of excess soil. Plan policies now distinguish between best practices required for “excess soil generated” and “fill received” during development, site alteration and infrastructure development. Best management practices must now be implemented through “municipal planning policies and relevant development proposals” to ensure poor quality fill does not adversely affect the natural environment or cultural heritage resources and is compatible with adjacent land uses. Where feasible, excess soil reuse planning should also be undertaken concurrently with development planning and design. Although the policies could be strengthened by referencing a clear legislative provision necessitating compliance, requiring the incorporation of best practices into municipal OPs will help mitigate the potential negative impacts on natural systems and hazards that may result from the inappropriate relocation of excess soil and placement of fill within TRCA’s jurisdiction. Agricultural Exemptions from Vegetation Protection Zones and Hydrologic/Natural Heritage Evaluations Policies exempting new buildings or structures for certain agricultural uses from locating within the vegetation protection zone (VPZ) of KHFs/KNHFs remain. As do similar exemptions from the requirement to complete a natural heritage or hydrologic evaluation (NHE/HE). The detailed policies requiring that certain criteria are met to be exempt from completing a NHE/HE have been consolidated into a single, undefined requirement; “best management practices” to protect or restore features and their functions. The lack of direction regarding how compliance with best management practices is to be demonstrated may lead to unintended challenges during policy implementation. CAs have regulatory requirements where NHEs/HEs or equivalent, could still be required to demonstrate compliance with permit applications submitted under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Similarly, Source Protection Plans under the Clean Water Act may also require hydrogeological assessments for certain development to ensure the safety and quality of public drinking water systems. Further analysis is needed to assess whether best management practices will provide sufficient environmental protection in lieu of a NHE/HE, when considering certain structures on agricultural lands and how the interplay of potentially conflicting policy/regulatory requirements will be managed. 314 Stormwater Management Ponds in Vegetation Protection Zones Improved SWM policies have replaced the term SWM “ponds” with the broader SWM “systems”. SWM systems account for a wider range of SWM facility components (e.g. outfalls, LID), which may need to be located closer to natural features than SWM ponds. Previously confusing policies pertaining to the location of SWM systems within the “Whitebelt” lands of major river valleys that connect the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario have been clarified. Within these areas, “naturalized” SWM systems may be permitted within the VPZ of a significant valleyland, provided they are at least 30 metres from the river or stream, and located outside the VPZ of any other KNHF/HSF. Refined policies also denote that the determination of an appropriate VPZ should consider the area and nature of the feature being protected and the nature of the proposed SWM system. Complete Communities Greater direction is provided on the objectives of a “complete” community, including: having a diversity of land uses; improved quality of life; access to a range of housing and transportation options; and, compact built form integrated with green infrastructure and low impact development to mitigate climate change impacts. Further clarification is also provided concerning how the Plans will support the achievement of complete communities, such as, requiring municipalities to develop strategies to achieve the minimum intensification targets while maximizing the use of existing infrastructure. Although the definition of complete communities does not explicitly reflect the contributions the natural environment can provide to a community’s overall health and well-being (clean air and water; resilient natural systems, access to a low-carbon lifestyle), the expanded objectives noted above include a number of other components previously recommended by TRCA staff. Net-Zero Communities Net-Zero Communities are referenced throughout the Plans, yet they are no longer defined. Moreover, a slight softening of policy language has shifted the intended timeframe sought to achieve them. For instance, previous policy direction aimed at “moving towards net-zero communities” now reads, “moving towards low-carbon communities with the long-term goal of net-zero communities”. Mapping the NHS The Province remains committed to mapping a Natural Heritage System comprised of natural heritage features and areas. Municipalities are expected to incorporate the NHS as an overlay in their OPs and apply corresponding NHS policies accordingly. However, NHS mapping will exclude municipal settlement areas that were approved as of July 1, 2017 and previously more prohibitive NHS policies appear to relax development restrictions adjacent to KHFs, KHAs and KNHFs within settlement areas. Additional examination of the NHS policies, in conjunction with existing PPS policy, is needed to understand the implications of this policy change. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff is engaged in this policy analysis work as per the normal course of their duties. No additional funding is proposed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • TRCA staff to attend training sessions offered by the Province on the four updated plans (ongoing); 315 • Coordinate internal consultations with senior management, planning and technical staff to assess the implications of the updated plan policies (ongoing). Report prepared by: Jeff Thompson, extension 5386 Emails: jthompson@trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett@trca.on.ca Date: June 23, 2017 __________________________________ 316 RES.#A125/17 - THE LIVING CITY FOUNDATION Management Model and Fundraising Initiatives. Provide the Authority with updates regarding The Living City Foundation’s management model and fundraising initiatives, and submit to the Authority a signed Management and Administrative Services Agreement that clearly defines the day-to-day relationship between the two organizations. Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick WHEREAS The Living City Foundation (LCF) raises money to support the initiatives of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); AND WHEREAS LCF has initiated two major fundraising campaigns for TRCA; AND WHEREAS TRCA and LCF have recently entered into a Management and Administrative Services Agreement (Attachment 1) that outlines the responsibilities of each organization pertaining to the operation of LCF; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Management and Administrative Services agreement as well as updates regarding the two major fundraising campaigns be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/16, held on January 6, 2017, Resolution #A204/16 was approved, in part, as follows: “…THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT The Living City Foundation be requested to move ahead with a two-phased $30 million fundraising campaign for the New Black Creek Pioneer Village that aims to secure $10 million in philanthropic commitments, grants, partnerships and corporate sponsorships during Phase 1 (2017-18), and $20 million during Phase 2 (2019-21).” At the subsequent LCF Board of Directors meeting held on February 22, 2017, a motion was approved to collaborate with TRCA in order to achieve a successful fundraising campaign for Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV). Together with a $750,000 fundraising campaign for Tommy Thompson Park that was initiated in late 2016, these two fundraising projects comprise a priority area of focus for LCF. LCF is an independent, non-controlled, registered charitable organization. It is governed by its own Board of Directors and serves the primary function of raising funds to support the undertakings of TRCA. Recently, LCF and TRCA entered into a Management and Administrative Services agreement to clearly define the day-to-day relationship between the two organizations. The purpose of this report is to provide the Authority with an overview of the recently captured LCF-TRCA relationship as well as to share updates on LCF’s fundraising initiatives and activities. 317 LCF Management Model On May 3, 2017, TRCA and LCF entered into a Management and Administrative Services agreement to define how TRCA employees will be providing management and administrative services to LCF. The Agreement promotes a harmonious day-to-day relationship between LCF and TRCA to help advance common goals. As per Agreement terms, all employees of LCF are TRCA employees who have been assigned to fulfill selected LCF roles and responsibilities. LCF’s existing staff (employees of TRCA) includes the following positions: Coordinator, Donor Stewardship; Coordinator, Events; Senior Development Officer; and, Philanthropy Officer. Along with these staff, TRCA’s Director, Parks and Culture is serving as Interim Executive Director to provide managerial and strategic oversight to LCF’s operations as well as to fill the position vacancy following the departure of LCF’s Executive Director in March 2017. TRCA’s Deputy Chief Financial Officer and TRCA’s Controller are providing financial management and guidance on day-to-day financial activity, and together with the Interim Executive Director, these employees have become signing authorities for LCF transactions. Additionally, various other TRCA employees and business teams are providing important services to LCF to help meet the organization’s fundraising and operating needs. The nature of these services include administration, financial management, fundraising, communications, grant writing, marketing, event management and public relations. As the LCF’s needs grow and evolve, so too will its service requirements. The current Agreement allows for a flexible day-to-day relationship wherein other such services of TRCA may be requested as needed to fulfill the LCF’s mission. LCF’s Fundraising Initiatives LCF supports the work of TRCA through a variety of activities and fundraising initiatives. Currently, these initiatives include: Annual fundraising events, including The Living City Environmental Dinner, Manulife Paddle the Don and the Heart Lake Dragon Boat Festival, which raise funds along with TRCA’s profile; ‘Look After Where You Live’ employee engagement program, which inspires employees across the Toronto region to participate in activities that enhance local nature; Planned Giving Program, which encourages donors to leave a lasting legacy through a planned gift to TRCA; Grants and proposals, which are prepared to secure funding for various projects across TRCA; Donations and sponsorships, which offer an ongoing source of funding for TRCA; Donor stewardship, which cultivates long-term support and engagement, and is an ongoing and integral responsibility of LCF; Fundraising campaigns, including a $750,000 campaign for Tommy Thompson Park, and a major multi-million dollar campaign for BCPV that aims to secure $12.5 million during phase one. As a major priority area of focus for LCF, these campaigns will continue to inform the organization’s service requirements. Along with these initiatives, LCF is also working to broaden the reach of their fundraising efforts to better serve environmentally focused community groups with whom TRCA partners. This may manifest in LCF serving as a funding vehicle for community partners, or in the development of new, community-based fundraising initiatives and events. 318 FINANCIAL DETAILS LCF’s new management model has produced a balanced budget for 2017. All core operating expenditures will be covered by self-generating revenues. Cost-to-Donation Ratio LCF’s fundraising campaigns employ a self-sustaining financial model. Using the Black Creek Pioneer Village campaign as a key point of reference (since it is the more ambitious of the two that are now underway), LCF has assessed the impacts of leading a successful campaign. This assessment indicates a cost-to-donation ratio of 20% over the life of the campaign. For example, the first phase of Black Creek Pioneer Village’s fundraising campaign aims to raise $10 million. This means that LCF would need to raise $12.5 million in order to provide TRCA with $10 million. This cost-to-donation ratio is in line with industry standards. For example, data from Charity Watch and Charity Navigator indicates that top-rated American not-for-profit organizations generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs and less than 25% on fundraising and administrative fees. Similarly, Charity Intelligence Canada provides top marks to not-for-profit organizations that spend between 17% and 27% on fundraising and administrative fees. When evaluating the cost-to-donation ratio, it is essential to consider the life of the campaign as costs may be considerably higher than donations in the infancy of any campaign. LCF will budget accordingly for this expectation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will provide the Authority with periodic updates on the activities of LCF and TRCA as they pertain to the terms of the Agreement. The Authority will also receive updates on the progress and outcomes of the two fundraising campaigns. Report prepared by: Stephanie Demetriou, extension 6424, Michael Tolensky, extension 5965 Emails: sdemetriou@trca.on.ca , mtolensky@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards@trca.on.ca Date: May 31, 2017 Attachments: 1 319 A t t a c h m e n t 1 3 2 0 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 6 RES.#A126/17- SECTION IV – ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Section IV item 10.3 – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/17, held on June 9, 2017, be received. CARRIED __________________________________ NEW BUSINESS RES.#A127/17 - WATERSHED REPORT CARDS Moved by: Ron Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT a report on the state of each one of the nine watersheds and the waterfront in the TRCA jurisdiction be presented by staff on a regular basis; AND FURTHER THAT the scope, content and communication format of these reports, as well as potential alignment with the mandate of the proposed Regional Watershed Alliance, be developed by staff in consultation with a select group of Authority members interested in this initiative. CARRIED __________________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:32 a.m., on Friday, June 23, 2017. ___________________________ ___________________________ Maria Augimeri Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer /ks 327 Authority Meeting #6/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, July 28, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:36 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Paul Ainslie Member Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Brenda Hogg Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Kevin Ashe Member Ron Chopowick Member Paula Fletcher Member Jim Karygiannis Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member RES.#A128/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Matt Mahoney Seconded by: Jennifer Drake THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/17, held on June 23, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 328 RES.#A129/17 - APPOINTMENT TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Regional Municipality of York. The Secretary-Treasurer advises that one new appointee to TRCA, representing the Regional Municipality of York, has been duly appointed and is entitled to sit as a member of this Authority until the 2018 annual meeting when all appointments for the period of the Annual Authority Meeting for 2018 to the Annual Authority Meeting for 2019 will be confirmed, unless a successor is appointed. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Regional Councillor Brenda Hogg be recognized as a Regional Municipality of York member of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) until November 30, 2018 and until the first meeting of TRCA afterwards, and as such is duly appointed and entitled to sit as a member of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #1/18, scheduled to be held on February 23, 2018, or until her successor is appointed. CARRIED BACKGROUND At York Region Council on December 18, 2014, Council approved the appointment of five Council appointees to TRCA for the term of Council. One of these positions became vacant due to the resignation of Deputy Mayor Michael Di Biase, and as a result of this vacancy, at York Region Council on June 29, 2017, Council approved appointment of Regional Councillor Brenda Hogg to TRCA until November 30, 2018. Each year at the annual meeting the Secretary-Treasurer advises who is entitled to sit as members of the Authority for the upcoming year. Due to the change in membership, such advisement needs to be provided at the July 28, 2017 meeting, to be effective until Annual Meeting #1/18, scheduled to be held on February 23, 2018, or until her successor is appointed. As a result, the Secretary-Treasurer is advising that Brenda Hogg is duly appointed to sit as a member of the Authority, effective July 28, 2017. Report Prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: July 4, 2017 ______________________________ 329 ELECTION OF OFFICERS RES.#A130/17 - REGION OF YORK REPRESENTATIVE ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT Brenda Hogg be elected as the Region of York representative on the Executive Committee. CARRIED ______________________________ PRESENTATIONS 6.1 A presentation by Nancy Gaffney, Head of Watershed Programs, TRCA, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. RES.#A131/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT above-noted presentation 6.1 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ DELEGATIONS 7.1. A delegation by Roy Wright, resident, Scarborough, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.2. A delegation by Sherri Lange, CEO, North American Platform Against Wind Power, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.3. A delegation by Jennifer Falvy, resident, Scarborough, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.4. A delegation by Jane Fairburn, resident, Scarborough, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.5. A delegation by Denise Wright, Resident, Scarborough, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.6. A delegation by Steve Smith, resident, Scarborough, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 330 7.7. A delegation by William Sheehan, resident, Toronto, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.8. A delegation by Nicole Conboy, resident, Scarborough, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.9. A delegation by Nadia Baer, Director, Save Lighthouse Surfbreak, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.10. A delegation by Jeff Green, resident, Toronto, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.11. A delegation by Gerard T. Arbour, resident, Scarborough, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.12. A delegation by Penn Penev, resident, Toronto, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 7.13. A delegation by Marlaine Koehler, Executive Director, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. RES.#A132/17 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT above-noted delegations 7.1 – 7.13 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ CORRESPONDENCE 8.1. A submission dated July 12, 2017 from M. Jane Fairburn and Kathleen Gillis, residents, Scarborough, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 8.2. A submission dated July 13, 2017 from Mr. Roy Wright, resident, Scarborough, in regard to 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 8.3. An email dated July 11, 2017 from Karen and Bob Yukich, residents, Toronto, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 8.4. A submission dated July 12, 2017 from Sherri Lange, CEO, North American Platform Against Wind Power, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 8.5. A letter dated July 10, 2017 from Marlaine Koehler, Executive Director, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 331 8.6. A letter dated July 13, 2017 from Jeff Forsyth, Past President, Centennial Community and Recreation Association, in regard to item 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. 8.7. An email dated July 19, 2017 from Gerard Arbour, resident, Toronto, in regard to 9.2 - Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. RES.#A133/17 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT above-noted correspondence 8.1 – 8.7 be received. CARRIED 332 TRCA Objective Response Background The preferred alternative of the TRCA is to harden the shore of Grey Abbey Beach, in the vicinity of East Point Park, by building a raised road and headlands, comprised of construction debris (otherwise known as “clean fill”). This landfill project will obliterate approximately a third of the 3 kilometre natural beach in the Scarborough Waterfront Project’s (SWP’s) East Segment. The 3 km area is bounded by the western most portion of the Segment to the access point to the beach at Beechgrove Drive. Environmental degradation is also anticipated in the sensitive Grey Abbey Ravine, where a virtually unstudied “tableland trail transition” area has been recently proposed. The Grey Abbey Ravine is home to the Bank Swallow, a listed, threatened species in Ontario. See: https://youtu.be/3Jl2EyYSViI 1. Protect and enhance terrestrial and aquatic natural features and linkages Shoreline hardening is well recognized as one of the worst threats to the stability and health of the Great Lakes system. Shoreline hardening obliterates the connections between terrestrial and water species and destroys near- shore animal, bird, plant and fish habitat. See: http://www.greatlakesmapping.org/lake-stressors and https://media.wix.com/ugd/7335b9_28acee24aa7540409ab0b2f9f305ef0c.pdf The TRCA acknowledges in its 2012 Scarborough Shoreline: Terrestrial Biological Inventory and Assessment that East Point Park and vicinity is at risk due to shoreline hardening. It recommends that natural shoreline conditions and beach habitats should be maintained at East Point Park and vicinity, see: 5.2(1)(c), Site Recommendations, pp. 28 and 29. In its 2012 report, the TRCA notes the significance of rare species at East Point Park, including prairie and coastal vegetation, p. 27. ESA (City of Toronto) and ANSI (Province of Ontario) designations apply to the East Segment. The entire coastal area is home to the Bank Swallow, which is now listed as a threatened species in Ontario, see: https://www.ontario.ca/page/bank-swallow. 2.Achieve value for cost Saving Grey Abbey Beach costs the taxpayer nothing. The TRCA has not provided costing to date for the destruction of the shore at Grey Abbey Beach, though requested to do so. The TRCA estimates the entire project to be $170 million with a 50% contingency, and acknowledges that 12 years of construction disturbance will be endured by affected residential communities if the project goes ahead. The TRCA indicates that costs for the destruction of the beach may be offset by tipping fees, paid to construction companies, which will dump construction garbage (“clean fill”) on the beach and in the lake, to fill the shore. See: “Scarborough Waterfront Project: Finding a Balance”. 3. Manage public safety and property risk The TRCA’s preferred alternative to manage public safety and property risk is to build an “access” road over the beach and thereby also control erosion. It is illogical for the TRCA to claim that safety in nature may be achieved by obliterating the very thing they are attempting to protect. It is also illogical for the TRCA to assert that a third of the 3 km beach is unsafe (requiring an “access” road) while the other portion of the beach is safe (not requiring an “access” road). It is also significant that the portion of the beach the TRCA proposes to preserve is more negatively affected by erosion than the portion of the beach they propose to destroy. It goes without saying that the least intrusive measure must be taken to control erosion, especially in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Grey Abbey Ravine. The TRCA has proposed and implemented innovative approaches to erosion control that do not involve extensive shoreline hardening in other areas of the Toronto waterfront, including at Toronto Island and previously building Bluffers Beach. The TRCA has not made a logical or valid case for the destruction of the shore at Grey Abbey, given other innovative measures available to control erosion. See: https://trca.ca/conservation/green-infrastructure/gibraltar-point-erosion- control-project/ The TRCA has asserted in stakeholder meetings that City of Toronto policy directs them to deploy shoreline hardening when developing the waterfront at Grey Abbey Beach. A detailed examination of the Toronto Official Plan and other documents and policy papers upon which the TRCA relies reveals just the opposite: that the TRCA is mandated to preserve and protect Grey Abbey Beach and prevent further shoreline hardening from occurring. (Refer to bibliography on page 2 for many of the pertinent documents and policy papers). If a policy or document exists that directs the TRCA to destroy the shore and near-shore areas at Grey Abbey Beach, they should produce it for review, as previously requested. The TRCA should not slavishly rely on outdated, destructive policy, if such policy exists. 4. Consistency and coordination with other initiatives The Great Lakes Waterfront Trail already exists on the headland, above Grey Abbey Beach. The Waterfront Trail’s location on the headland is appropriate, given the ecological and cultural sensitivity of Grey Abbey Beach and vicinity. See: Regeneration, Toronto’s Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality, and Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (ISMP). (For further information, see page 2.) M. Jane Fairburn (janefairburn.com) and Kathleen Gillis ©, July 12, 2017. Paved Paradise: Why Destroying Grey Abbey Beach is Contrary to TRCA Objectives in the Scarborough Waterfront Project (SWP) Page 1 CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 333 Supporting Documents for the Scarborough Waterfront Project, East Segment, Grey Abbey Beach Lockhart, R., Peterson, B., Reid, R., and Woodburn, B.. The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality. Toronto: 1991. Link: http://virtualreferencelibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM552772&R=552772 Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report. Toronto: 1992. Link: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/bcp-pco/Z1-1988-1-1992-1-eng.pdf The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (ISMP). 1996. Link: http://trca.on.ca/trca-user-uploads/IntegratedShorelineManagementPlan.pdf The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Watershed Plan. 1980. Link: http://trca.on.ca/trca-user-uploads/WatershedPlan.pdf Toronto City Planning. Toronto Official Plan. Toronto: June, 2015. Link: http://www1.toronto.ca/planning/chapters1-5.pdf Toronto Transportation Services, Parks, Forestry and Recreation. Toronto Multi-Use Trail Design Guidelines. Toronto: 2014. Link: http://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/Transportation%20Services/Cycling/Files/pdf/TORONTO %20MULTI-USE%20TRAIL%20DESIGN%20GUIDELINES-December%202014_Fina_4.pdf Waterfront Regeneration Trust. Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy. Toronto: 1995. Link: http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM670781&R=670781 Waterfront Technical Committee. The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. 1967. Link: http://trca.on.ca/trca-user-uploads/TheWaterfrontPlanfortheMetropolitanTorontoPlanningArea-Dec1967.pdf 5. Provide an enjoyable waterfront experience The current preferred alternative deeply denigrates the rich social, environmental and cultural significance of Grey Abbey Beach and vicinity. The connection to the lake, the ability to walk on the shore and swim in the water, and the legacy that offers to future generations will be lost forever. And what is gained in its stead? What the TRCA now correctly calls a “service road” (also referred to as a waterfront “trail”). Water recreation for the well-established community of paddleboarders, surfers and kayakers at Grey Abbey, who require gradual, sandy access to the lake, will effectively be denied. M. Jane Fairburn (janefairburn.com) and Kathleen Gillis ©, July 12, 2017.Page 2334 "M.Jane Fairburn" 07/19/2017 01:10 PM To Kathy Stranks <kstranks@trca.on.ca>, cc bcc Subject Fwd: Comments, Scarborough Waterfront Development Project, PIC#3 Hello Ms. Stranks, I would appreciate it if you would forward the email below to all the members of the TRCA board, in advance of the meeting on July 28, 2017. Many thanks, Jane Fairburn http://janefairburn.com/ https://soundcloud.com/jf2/jane-fairburn-and-tasha-kheiriddin-discusses-the-trcas-plans-to-pave- grey-abbey-beach https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZQMBKbthLA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ8jjbeNaEghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ QMBKbthLA Begin forwarded message: From: M.Jane Fairburn Subject: Comments, Scarborough Waterfront Development Project, PIC#3 Date: July 12, 2017 at 11:40:12 PM EDT To: Toronto and Region Conservation Waterfront <waterfront@trca.on.ca> Cc: Councillor Crawford <councillor crawford@toronto.ca>, Councillor Ainslie < councillor ainslie@toronto.ca>, "Arthur Potts, MPP" <apotts.mpp@liberal.ola.org >, councillor hart@toronto.ca, raymond.cho@pc.ola.org, mhunter.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, "Arthur Potts, MPP" < apotts.mpp@liberal.ola.org>, gmurray.mpp@liberal.ola.org, kmcgarry.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, "Lorenzo Berardinetti, MPP (Constituency Office)" <lberardinetti.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>, Bill.Blair@parl.gc.ca Dear Mr. Worrell, Torontonians are very lucky. In the east end of the city, beyond the towers of the downtown and the commotion of the Beach district, lies a fringe of gentle, sandy shore, uninhibited by concrete and construction refuse. South of the Kingston Road, at the bottom of Brimley Avenue, lies the largely manmade Bluffer’s Beach, while to the east, Grey Abbey Beach, wilder and teaming with rare flora and fauna, is part of the last remaining natural sand beach on the mainland of Toronto. Aside from the unique opportunities these areas present for humans to be in nature, these shores are quite special from another perspective: Torontonians actually swim, surf, paddle and play in the water. The TRCA has developed a proposal that would negatively impact Torontonians' ability to use Bluffer’s Beach. Farther to the east, at Grey Abbey, the TRCA delivers the knock-out punch, with the proposal for the complete obliteration of the shore from the western edge of the East Segment, all the way over to the Grey Abbey Ravine. But perhaps actually floating, splashing and playing in the water doesn’t matter much to the 335 TRCA. At the PIC#2 meeting, a TRCA official indicated that what Torontonians really wanted was to, “dip their toe in the water.” How outrageous. How insulting to the intelligence of Torontonians. How deeply lacking in insight. Despite over 1,000 signatures on a petition that decries shoreline hardening and supports sensible increased access to the beach, despite the virtual mutiny of the TRCA stakeholder’s group subsequent to the PIC#2 meeting, despite the disgust of several University of Toronto environmental students, and despite the vehement resistance voiced at the PIC#3 meeting, the TRCA is marching ahead with its pre-ordained plan and attempting to ram this malevolent, $170 million, 12 year disruptive boondoggle down the throats of taxpayers. Instead of delivering answers to multiple unanswered requests by the public for further information about their developing proposal, the TRCA boldly hired another consultant on the taxpayer’s dime — a person who deals with, in her own words, “difficult EA projects”. To add insult to injury, a thinly veiled suggestion was made by Waterfront Specialist Nancy Gaffney at the PIC#3 meeting that Scarborough Bluffs residents to not want to share the beaches with other Torontonians. I, for one, am on the record as supporting increased access to the beach. With the effects of global warming all around us, Toronto’s beaches are a precious resource. I do not, however, support access to a concrete highway to nowhere that obliterates the beach and destroys habitat for threatened species. It is my position that the TRCA has not satisfied any of the objectives previously outlined in the SWP. My comments on the failure of the TRCA to meet those objectives will form the basis of my deposition to the TRCA at the July 28, 2017 meeting. Suffice it to say for now that the proposal in its current form lacks imagination — there is a paucity of thought and disinclination to consider the many ways of increasing access to the beach, while curbing erosion and ensuring safety that does not involve the destruction of the very reason for going down to the water in the first place. Toronto's past is littered with mistakes that deprived us of much of our waterfront. The fact that we are poised to wreck more of what precious little we have left is nothing short of outrageous in the twenty-first century. The SWP presents a unique opportunity to get the eastern shore right for generations to come. Please go back to the drawing board, respect and hear the public, and bring us back a vision for the shore of which we can all be proud. Jane Fairburn Author, Along the Shore: Rediscovering Toronto’s Waterfront Heritage http://janefairburn.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ8jjbeNaEghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ QMBKbthLA http://janefairburn.com/blog/ http://janefairburn.com/the-trcas-scarborough-waterfront-development-project-june-28-2 016-meeting-my-comments/ 336 CORRESPONDENCE 8.2 TRCA Board Members - Re: TRCA Scarborough Waterfront Project PRICELESS SANDY BEACHES OF THE BLUFFS The SWP could be a golden opportunity to showcase eastern Toronto’s spectacular Scarborough bluffs with all the opportunities that this fresh water lake has to offer i.e. access to the water for the enjoyment of recreational activities, for the surfers, swimmers, boaters and all sandy beach uses. Unfortunately, the corporate plan to continue their coastal roadway agenda will cancel all potential water activities by hardscaping the shoreline. To achieve a fully considered waterfront development, the SWP could accommodate a) In the eastern sector …the environmentally healthy and water accessible sandy shoreline could be preserved as is in perpetuity. b) In the central sector…re-establish water access with a sandy beachhead to accommodate swimming, boating and all water activities. Also, provide a safe public accessible switch back path at the Guild Park waterfront. Note: an alternate SWP plan that reflects what the public wants was presented to TRCA’s coastal engineer. He verified that the public’s alternate plan to create a sandy beach with visitor docking facilities was feasible and it would not decrease the size of the current beach at Bluffers. c) In the western sector…keep Bluffers Park Beach as is, i.e. do not add a waterfront roadway between Doris McCarthy Trail and Bluffers beach that will destroy much of the current size of the blue flag sandy beach that has taken decades to establish. Also, the current ideal surfing conditions at Bluffers will forever be destroyed. To Whom It May Concern….in planning for an excellent long term permanent eastern Toronto waterfront development, the plan would 1. comply with the 2012 environmental recommendations 2. would reclaim a beach for water access and 3. would provide the public with an access path to the Guild Park waterfront. The current corporate SWP waterfront road plan irrevocably fails on all accounts. Our comments reflect over 1,000 informed and concerned residents of the Scarborough Bluffs community. Our mandate, as should be with the TRCA, is to preserve Toronto’s last priceless natural shoreline. In its natural state, the shoreline along Grey Abbey beach is a spectacular geological treasure. Over 12,000 years old, this shoreline is a tremendous asset for education, recreation, heritage, and is an established habitat to hundreds of local and migrating species. The value of this area will be devastated and irrevocably impaired if the current plan to “hardscape” the shoreline is realized. Please visit www.torontonaturalshorlines.com for researched information specific to our precious waterfront now under threat from the TRCA’s proposed irreversible roadway project. Roy and Denise Wright “Friends of the Bluffs” and 50 year Scarborough Bluff residents 337 TRCA Board Members Re: June 28 PIC 3 Meeting Comments Comments 1. All public speaker comments had a negative response to the corporate “preferred plan”, no one was in favour of destroying the sandy shoreline with a roadway. The PIC 1,2,3 and a stakeholder meeting I attended had the same public response of disapproving the hardening of the shoreline. 2. Misleading erosion information was displayed on the picture panels. A photo of a major land slide slump west of Morningside had a caption “Grey Abbey Park land slide”. Grey Abbey Park is east of Morningside where no landslides have occurred along the natural shoreline. All major and minor slumps have occurred west of Morningside where TRCA erosion works have been completed. Erosion rates along the Grey Abbey bluffs is estimated at one foot per year where private backyards back onto the park with approximately 280 feet of parkland, the erosion could theoretically be a problem in 280 years. 3. The surfers association gave strong arguments against the western sector development that would destroy their water recreation activities. There are over 1,000 surfer members in Toronto some with Olympic aspirations that TRCA had not considered in the shoreline design process. Note: Arthur Potts, the junior minister of MOECC, told me that the surfers concerns (safety issues and destroying a unique naturalized surfing location) will need to be addressed by TRCA. 4. Saving Grey Abbey Park shoreline was of major public concern. TRCA proudly announced the SWP revision will save over half a kilometer of natural shoreline by ending their waterfront roadway at the Roma Hass ravine location. Note: Shame on TRCA for not saving all of the last remaining eastern sandy shoreline. The public has trust that TRCA will respect their Conservation mandate, would preserve a healthy natural environment, would comply with ESA/ANSI policy and comply with environmental recommendations not to harden the shoreline. 5. Since PIC 1 & 2, the estimated $80 million project has more than doubled to $170 million. Note: Based on records of tendered projects with the city, the preliminary estimate of $170 million would likely double by the end of the 10-15 year construction period, with 338 the results of a misguided development where tax revenue could have otherwise been invested in positive City improvements. 6. Jane Fairburn, the critically acclaimed author of “Along the Shore – discovering Toronto’s waterfront heritage”, whose passion and expert in depth knowledge of this coastline, disputes the whole shoreline hardening concept. She questioned the expertise of TRCA’s paid consultant who is a leading spokesperson for the SWP team who admitted that she has never been along the historical shoreline that she is promoting to destroy in favour of a waterfront roadway extension. Request to Board Members – As informed members of the TRCA Executive Board, your considered response and action in this matter could have a profound effect toward a fully considered SWP plan. Please defer approving the corporate “preferred option” that will destroy a priceless beachfront. Your direction to TRCA staff addressing the above concerns is critical at this stage of E.A. development. Roy Wright Stakeholder Resident 339 340 341 Karen Yukich 11/07/2017 07:24 PM To Kathy Stranks <kstranks@trca.on.ca>, wfront@trca.on.ca, cc bcc Subject Scarborough Waterfront Project, TRCA meeting July 28, 2017 To TRCA: We are opposed to the Preliminary Preferred East Segment Alternative. This alternative proposes to destroy the natural sand beach from the Grey Abbey shore, eastward to the western boundary of East Point Park. Destruction of the majority of the last remaining natural sand beach on the mainland of Toronto will produce profound and irreversible environmental damage. Such action is contrary to the mandate of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and is a betrayal of the public trust. The TRCA exists to protect our natural heritage, not to disfigure it with ill-conceived engineering solutions. We urge you to have the foresight to manage this area responsibly for future generations. There are other ways to connect a trail across this area without taking such a drastic and damaging approach. If there are not sufficient funds available at this time to do it in a better way, than doing nothing at all would be preferable. Erosion is a fact of life on a lakeside shoreline and no amount of engineering will stop it, especially as we move into a time of more extreme weather conditions. Parts of the trail that were built just recently have already fallen away. It's a reminder to be humble in the face of nature's powers. We are cyclists who use park trails and we are also naturalists who treasure our city's outstanding natural heritage. Please do not sacrifice this heritage for the sake of active recreation. Some areas are simply not appropriate for active recreation trails. There are other low-impact ways to appreciate nature and this area's remarkable geological formations. Most Torontonians are amazed when they discover the natural beauty of this area. Please keep it intact for future generations to discover and appreciate. Thank you! Karen & Bob Yukich 39 Lincoln Ave Toronto ON M6P 1M7 https://trca.ca/conservation/green-infrastructure/scarborough-waterfront-project/public-informati on-centres/#pic2 CORRESPONDENCE 8.3 342 1 | P a g e CORRESPONDENCE 8.4 SUBMISSION TO THE TRCA WATERFRONT PROJECT LEADERS AS FOLLOW UP FOR PIC 3 June 28th 2017 MEETING AT CARDINAL NEWMAN HIGH SCHOOL Sherri Lange Michael Spencley 109 Toynbee Trail, Scarborough, Ontario M1E 1G4 Dear Mr. Worrell and Ms. Gaffney, Delivered by Email: lworrell@trca.on.ca ngaffney@trca.on.ca (This is a revised version, with thanks, to replace commentary on July 12.) Thank you for receiving our comments, on behalf of Michael and myself, to the PIC 3 meeting June 28th, 2017 at Cardinal Newman High School. Time allotted for comments ran out before about four of us at the microphone could speak and ask our questions. We felt that the time given twice to one person, who was given about 10 minutes over two times at the mike, was perhaps unfair to those of us not granted the courtesy of a few comments and questions at the end of the hour. One of the last commenters, Mr. Michael Spencley, was cut off, but reminded the TRCA officers, technical team, and EA developers, that our elected representatives were in attendance, and that it was important that they know our perspectives on the East Segment of this TRCA proposal, namely, that we strongly object to paving or hardening the Grey Abbey and East Point beach, measuring more than 2 kilometres, the longest natural shoreline in the GTA. 343 2 | P a g e At this meeting, we could not discern a single person at the PIC 3 meeting, who was in favor of the hardening and engineering of this ancient beach. Despite the TRCA offering a revised lesser hardening, by about 650 meters, questions arose as to how that section was now deemed to be preserved, and the rest not, and by which rationale this new solution to the public’s concerns arose. The record will show that this “solution” was not well received and was seriously questioned for several reasons by citizens in the Q and A. Additionally, at other meetings, we could not discern other than at one time, miniscule support for the paving of the beach, with the clear majority of attendees, stakeholders, providing numerous objections and articulating, in our view, excellent suggestions and solutions. Comments: This is a hardening that must not take place. Nowhere in the world would such an historic beach be considered for ruination, hardening, and loss of direct access to the beach, for all living creatures. Perhaps one of the least appreciated proposals that is parceled with the project’s enhanced trails agenda is the intent to dump rubble and stones, and rocks and construction debris down the Guild Access road for TWELVE YEARS with the purpose of hardscaping the beach and building jetties or groins, barring water entry for people and animals. This will have severe impacts to the pristine centuries old beach and its living environment will be demolished irreversibly. We have met with the TRCA at various times, and have expressed with the team that the inevitable impacts of this aggressive treatment of a rare beach are not in line with “conservation,” and that the public now has little appetite for this additional destruction having witnessed the removal of 2600 ash trees, and other collateral 344 3 | P a g e damages, in the wetlands and Guild forests, in preparation for the Dynamic Inn Banquet Hall, now in operation. These trees, most of which were removed from the interior forest, had some, many, according to an independent Arborist from the Thousand Islands, a chance of recovery and should never have been removed, even if needing intervention. Bio mass of a substantial order necessary for healthy forest recovery, has now been removed. Collateral damage occurred with Butternut trees gouged, and other smaller saplings, cherry, maple, simply mowed down as they were “in the way.” Nowhere in the forests of the area, Colonel Danforth Park and Forest, Rouge Forest, etc. are they, the City of Toronto Forestry Department, taking down dying or recovering ash trees. Nowhere. This has been a large shock to wildlife, numbering in the tens of thousands, and those who habituate and travel this tip of the Carolinian Forest for many years. The excuse of Public Safety has been used in this instance, and is being used again with the idea of paving a natural beach. The cash for ash program appears to be only a small part now of more devastation to the area, possibly trucking C and D (Construction and Demolition rubble, which incudes lead paint, asbestos, solvents, etc.) from the GTA, taking tipping fees, for the TRCA for 12 years. The Waterfront team estimates the cost to be about $170 million. DIRECT HIT IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE We have now witnessed increased and different wildlife in our yards as various species try to find new habitat, or recover from weather shocks, or general displacement. This includes rare sightings of the at-risk door mouse in back yards. Habitat loss is of high concern world wide. While the City of Toronto expands and builds, we feel it must balance the ecological treasures it holds, and safeguard these for future generations. Once these are damaged or “engineered beyond balance,” there will be no chance to recover. 345 4 | P a g e The forest area at the Guild is part of the Carolinian Chain, and examples with little question, the best area of Carolinian habitat in the GTA: home to over 200 species of birds, either migrating or nesting. One author writes in his birdathon at this Guild area: As sunlight began to filter into the woods, many other birds began to sing. In one particular productive patch of Guildwood Park, I had six warbler species at once—Black-and-White, Pine, Bay-breasted, Magnolia, Black Throated Blue and Ovenbird…..plus Great Crested Flycatcher to add to the Flycatcher count. As I passed by the old Guild Inn, I had the day’s first Chimney Swifts flying overhead, and by the time I followed the path down to the lakeshore, I was an hour into my day, with a count of 41 species. Looking west along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Guildwood and East Point parks. The area along the shore, up to the forest, and on the cliffs, is a unique and ancient habitat, that must be protected and provided natural integrity, not an engineered 346 5 | P a g e approach to managing tourism, providing safety, and so-called erosion protection. It is now well known that shorelines have a dynamic of their own, and hardening simply and generally, moves the erosion down line. World wide, coastal experts are rebuilding natural shores, and removing hardening. (In some instances, stabilizing may be an economic necessity. This is not the case with the shore in question.) Protection is being called for all-natural beaches world wide. A beach is a NATURAL erosion and storm protection. There are about 38,000 beaches in the world, and awareness of the struggle to protect these is rising. A beach or shoreline provides habitat and food for multiple living creatures, and once gone, it cannot be recovered. No paving, is becoming a mantra. Beaches are a natural “regulation.” 347 6 | P a g e Beaches help protect us from storms. The wider the beach is, the more it reduces storm damage. It does this by dissolving energy across the surf zone. It also protects us from storms surges, tsunamis, and high tides. Nourishment is typically a repetitive process, it does not remove the physical forces that cause erosion, but it helps ease their effects. SHORELINE IMPACTS In a cautionary writing, North Carolina coastal protectors opine. It is worth including the entire segment called, Truths of the Shoreline. The limitations of groins and jetties are also explained in this piece. “TRUTHS OF THE SHORELINE” Cape May is the country’s oldest shoreline resort. Built on a shoreline that migrates much like North Carolina’s, it is a classic example of the poorly developed American shoreline, and one from which North Carolina can learn. From examples of Cape May and other shoreline areas, certain generalizations or “universal truths” about the shoreline emerge quite clearly. These truths are equally evident to scientists who have studied the shoreline and old-timers who have lived there all their lives. As aids to safe and aesthetically pleasing shoreline development, they should be the fundamental basis of planning on any barrier island. 348 7 | P a g e Figure 22 Carolina Beach, N.C. 1977 Figure 23 Miami Beachless, 1972 1. There is no erosion problem until a structure is built on a shoreline. Beach erosion is a common, expected event, not a natural disaster. Shoreline erosion in its natural state is not a threat to barrier islands. It is, in fact, an integral part of island evolution and the dynamic system of the entire barrier island. When a beach retreats it does not mean that the island is disappearing; the island is migrating. Many developed islands are migrating at surprisingly rapid rates, though only the few investigators who pore over aerial photographs are aware of it. Whether the beach is growing or shrinking does not concern the visiting swimmer, surfer, hiker, or fisherman. It is when man builds a “permanent” structure in this zone of change that a problem develops. 2. Construction by man on the shoreline causes shoreline changes. The sandy beach exists in a delicate balance with sand supply, beach shape, wave energy, and sea-level rise. This is called the dynamic equilibrium. Most construction on or near the shoreline changes this balance and reduces the natural flexibility of the beach (Figure 22). The result is change which often threatens man-made structures. Dune-removal, which often 349 8 | P a g e precedes construction, reduces the sand supply used by the beach to adjust its profile during storms. Beach cottages-even those on stilts-may obstruct the normal sand exchange between the beach and the shelf during storms. Similarly, engineering devices interrupt or modify the natural cycle. (Our emphasis) 3. Shoreline engineering protects the interests of a very few, often at a very high cost in federal and state dollars. Shoreline engineering is carried out to save beach property, not the beach itself. Beach-stabilization projects are in the interest of the minority of beach property owners rather than the public. If the shoreline were allowed to migrate naturally over and past the cottages and hot dog stands, the fisherman and swimmer would not suffer. Yet beach property owners apply pressure for the spending of tax money public funds-to protect the beach. Since these property owners do not constitute the general public, their personal interests do not warrant the large expenditures of public money required for shoreline stabilization. Exceptions to this rule are the beaches near large metropolitan areas. The combination of extensive high rise development and heavy beach use (100,000 or more people per day) affords ample economic justification for extensive and continuous shoreline stabilization projects. The cost of replenishing Wrightsville Beach, for example, is equal to that of replenishing Coney Island, New York, which accommodates tens of thousands more people daily during the summer months. It is more justifiable to spend tax money to replenish the latter beach, since protection of this beach is virtually in the interest of the public that pays for it. 4. Shoreline engineering destroys the beach it was intended to save. If this sounds incredible to you, drive to New Jersey or Miami Beach and examine their shores. See the miles of “well protected” shoreline-without beaches! (Figure 23). 5. The cost of saving beach property through shoreline engineering is usually greater than the value of the property to be saved. Price estimates are often unrealistically low in the long run for a variety of reasons. Maintenance, repairs, and replacement costs are typically underestimated, because it is erroneously assumed that the big storm, capable of removing an entire beach-replenishment project overnight, will somehow bypass the area. The inevitable hurricane, moreover, is viewed as a catastrophic act of God or a sudden stroke of bad luck for 350 9 | P a g e which one cannot plan. The increased potential for damage resulting from shoreline engineering is also ignored in most cost evaluations. In fact, very few shoreline engineering projects would be funded at all if those controlling the purse strings realized that such “lines of defense” must be perpetual. 6. Once you begin shoreline engineering, you can’t stop it! This statement, made by a city manager of a Long Island Sound community, is confirmed by shoreline history throughout the world. Because of the long-range damage caused to the beach it “protects,” this engineering must be maintained indefinitely. Its failure to allow the sandy shoreline to migrate naturally results in a steepening of the beach profile, reduced sand supply, and therefore, accelerated erosion. Thus, once man has installed a shoreline structure, “better” -larger and more expensive-structures must subsequently be installed, only to suffer the same fate as their predecessors. History shows us that there are two situations that may terminate shoreline engineering. First, a civilization may fail and no longer build and repair its structures. This was the case with the Romans, who built mighty seawalls. Second, a large storm may destroy a shoreline-stabilization system so thoroughly that people decide to “throw in the towel.” In America, however, such a storm is usually regarded as an engineering challenge and thus results in continued shoreline- stabilization projects. Rubble from two or more generations of seawalls remains off some New Jersey beaches! Figure 24 Monmouth Beach, N.J., Seawall, 1976 351 10 | P a g e THE SOLUTIONS 1. Design to live with the flexible island environment. Don’t fight nature with a “line of defense.” 2. Consider all man-made structures near the shoreline temporary. 3. Accept as a last resort any engineering scheme for beach restoration or preservation, and then, only for metropolitan areas. 4. Base decisions affecting island development on the welfare of the public rather than the minority of shorefront property owners. 5. Let the lighthouse, beach cottage, motel, or hot dog stand fall when its time comes. From a one-page document from various local researchers about hardening: A CASE AGAINST COASTAL BEACH ENGINEERING WITH REFERENCE TO THE TRCA PROPOSED HARDENING OF THE SCARBOROUGH SHORELINE AT EAST POINT, GREY ABBEY, GUILDWOOD. PLEASE PRESERVE THIS HISTORIC AND ESA (Environmentally Significant Area), 13,000 YEAR-OLD BEACH, FOR THE FUTURE OF TORONTO. What is hardening? Hardening “stressors” are structures built usually parallel to shore, such as seawalls, or jetties, groins or bulkheads. They were thought to prevent erosion, and to protect “human” investments along coastal areas, but are now recognized to be harmful and adverse to nearshore and offshore ecosystems, as well as increasing erosion and impacts of natural events. What does the world community of study of coastal processes say? Here are 7 points that make hardening this unique and historic beach area unacceptable. Hardening should be avoided. It is expensive, not ecologically sensitive, and increases erosion. 1. A growing body of literature “suggests that natural alternatives, such as living or nature-based shore protection or biogenic habitat restoration, can reduce erosion while also enhancing other ecosystem services.” 352 11 | P a g e 2. “The first 10‐15 metres of land that surround lakes and rivers is responsible for 90% of lake life which are born, raised and fed in these areas. In addition, these areas are up to 500% more diverse than other areas upland from lakes and rivers.” http://www.natureindeed.com/PDFs/Healthy_Shorelines.pdf 3. “Healthy shorelines are vital to maintaining the overall health of lakes and other bodies of water. Shorelines help filter pollutants, protect against erosion and provide habitat for fish and other forms of wildlife. Shorelines are some of the most ecologically productive places on Earth. They support plants, microorganisms, insects, amphibians, birds, mammals and fish.” (Link as above) 4. Biodiversity is generally 23% lower along shorelines with seawalls when compared with that of natural shorelines. Overall organism abundance has been reported to be 45% lower in sea walled areas. Similar reductions in abundance are seen and expected with other hardening processes. 5. There are unexpected consequences with hardening: loss of connectivity species to species, land to water, feeding, procreation, and the risk of better habitat for invasive species. 6. There is a growing body of conservationists who are calling for immediate cessation of hardening processes, and a healthy long look at a return to nature based approaches. Erosion is not contained by hardening, and in many if not most cases, moves the erosion downside, and increases it. 7. “Softer alternatives such as beach nourishment, living shorelines, and strategic retreat respond to rising seas while maintaining the beaches and marshes that are essential to both our coastal ecosystems and coastal economy.” WHAT DOES CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION RUBBLE LOOK LIKE AND CONTAIN? Imagine 12 years of this down a local road to a natural beach. 353 12 | P a g e Cement contains: asbestos fibres, often hard to discern as they were mixed in very well; clay; silica; calcium carbonate, alumina and iron ore; adhesives; moulds. Construction Debris contains: lead paint; other wastes generated during new building construction include treated wood, paint and solvent wastes, glues and roofing tars. 354 13 | P a g e CONCLUSION No amount of justification on behalf of “accessibility” or “erosion control,” or purported increased public safety, is going to convince the public that this natural beach should be and could be sacrificed. 1. There is zero justification for this ignoble idea of hardening a natural beach which is the envy of many jurisdictions. 2. Anticipated higher tourism needs to be mitigated in other ways: signage, education on natural beach ecology, and perhaps fines for those who endanger themselves causing taxpayer expense. 3. Advertise zero tolerance for abuse of the environment, littering, etc. 4. Recommend signage explaining the history of this beach, engendering respect. Please see Jen Falvy’s amazing photographic journey of this beach. https://www.torontonaturalshorelines.ca/copy-of-gallery-2 This image is by permission of local photographer/artist, Pam Erickson. 355 4195 Dundas St. West, Ste 227• Toronto, ON M8X 1Y4 416-943-8080 • mk@wrtrust.com • www.waterfronttrail.org July 10, 2017 Ms. Maria Augimeri, Chair Toronto Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Dear Ms Augimeri: Re: Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment Thank you very much for the opportunity for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to provide comments on Overall Preferred Alternative dated June 28, 2017 for the Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. The Waterfront Regeneration Trust is a registered charity that evolved from the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (1988 – 1991; report Regeneration) and the subsequent Waterfront Regeneration Trust Provincial Agency (1992 – 1995; report The Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy). Our mandate is rooted in the recommendations and policy documents listed above and our work to create a Great Lakes Waterfront Trail is an expression of the philosophy and approach they promote. A summary of the history of the Trust and excerpts from the above noted reports that relate the Scarborough Waterfront are attached. Given this background, the Trust was invited to participate in the Stakeholder Committee that provided input into the proposals that were developed that result in the Overall Preferred Alternative. Vicki Barron, Director of Regeneration Initiatives and retired Credit Valley Conservation General Manager represented the WRT on the Committee. The Waterfront Regeneration Trust supports the Overall Preferred Alternative. The development of the Preferred Alternative has been guided by the nine principles for regenerating the waterfront that were developed after extensive public consultation by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront – Clean, Green, Connected, Open, Accessible, Useable, Diverse, Affordable and Attractive. In addition, the Preferred Alternative has been developed with the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan as the base of information for this important section of the Lake Ontario shoreline. This was a key recommendation coming out of the Royal Commission work. CORRESPONDENCE 8.5 356 4195 Dundas St. West, Ste 227• Toronto, ON M8X 1Y4 416-943-8080 • mk@wrtrust.com • www.waterfronttrail.org The Waterfront Regeneration Trust commends the TRCA and the City of Toronto on the development of the Preferred Alternative and the extensive opportunity for public input and the care taken to refine the Alternative to incorporate public and agency comments. The proposed route for the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail and Greenway as outlined in the Preferred Alternative will be a much desired and used public space and we urge the TRCA, City of Toronto and Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to approve the Preferred Alternative and move on to implementation. The WRT has worked closely with TRCA since the days of the Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto Waterfront, and we are of the opinon that their expertise along with the expert consultant team, have prepared a well-balanced approach in the Preferred Alternative. The Great Lakes Waterfront Trail celebrates its 25th Anniversary this year. We have added three Great Lakes, close to 1800km and 91 community and First Nation partners since the Trail’s launch in 1995. Closing the gap in Scarborough with an initiative that reflects the vision and collective mandate for a regenerated, publicly accessible, connected waterfront has been long awaited. The Preferred Alternative offers an excellent way forward. Yours truly, Marlaine Koehler Executive Director 357 History of our Charitable Organization 1988 Public dismay over the development of federal waterfront property leads the Government of Canada to establish the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront with Honourable David Crombie as Commissioner 1991 The Royal Commission held public hearings and carried out extensive public consultation and reported their recommendations to the Federal and Provincial Governments through the document “Regeneration”. http://www.waterfronttrail.org/partner-resource-center/publications#regeneration-toronto-s-waterfront-and-the- sustainable-city-final-report-1992 1992 The Province of Ontario establishes the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Provincial Agency to implement recommendations of "Regeneration", a Royal Commission report which includes over 80 recommendations based on public consultations. One of these recommendations is to create a continuous waterfront trail along the Lake Ontario shoreline.” In 1995 the Trust reports to the Province of Ontario through the document The Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy http://www.waterfronttrail.org/partner-resource-center/publications#lake-ontario-greenway-strategy 1999 The Waterfront Regeneration Trust evolves from an Ontario government agency into an independent charitable organization. The Trust is the organization leading the movement to create a Waterfront Trail for the Canadian Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. We do this in partnership with 68 community partners, supporting corporations, foundations and partner organizations. http://www.waterfronttrail.org/section/strategic-plan-2014 358 Excerpts from Waterfront Regeneration Trust Documents that Relate to the Establishment of the Waterfront Trail and References to the Scarborough Section of the Trail 1991 “Regeneration”. http://www.waterfronttrail.org/partner-resource-center/publications#regeneration-toronto-s-waterfront-and-the- sustainable-city-final-report-1992 Recommendations in this document relevant to the Waterfront Trail include: “Recommendation #35- The Royal Commission recommends that the proposed shoreline regeneration plan for the Greater Toronto bioregion include basic design and policy for a waterfront greenway; and provide ongoing consultation with affected municipalities, conservation authorities, other agencies and citizens’ groups. Recommendation #36-The Royal Commission further recommends that a waterfront greenway be of sufficient scope to incorporate the recommended interim and optimum routes for the Waterfront Trail. Policies for public lands along the waterfront should reflect the Province’s assertion that the Waterfront Trail will be ‘the highest land use for all public lands along the water’s edge’. …. Recommendation #76-The Commission further recommends that the City of Scarborough, Metropolitan Toronto and TRCA participate in preparing the proposed shoreline regeneration plan, including the waterfront greenway and trail and ensure that any other plans for waterfront areas are reviewed and/or developed in this context. Recommendation #77-The Province of Ontario, the Regional Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and the City of Scarborough should negotiate a Waterfront Partnership Agreement in conjunction with appropriate authorities and agencies. It should: -clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of various agencies and authorities in developing and implementing plans for the Scarborough waterfront; -offer comprehensive waterfront and river valley policies, taking into account the environmental vulnerability of the Scarborough Bluffs and the Rouge River Valley area. Such policies should outline ways to acquire, maintain, and provide access to land along the waterfront and up the river valleys. They could take the form of a waterfront plan and should be incorporated into the City’s official and secondary plans; -encourage continued development of a waterfront trail, including a two-tiered trail in Scarborough as part of the regional greenway and trail system, one route above the bluffs and one at their base. The system should also enhance access nodes to the waterfront, improve access to Bluffer’s Park, and include facilities to educate the public on the geological processes that contributed to formation of the bluffs; ……..” 1995 The Trust reports to Ontario through the document The Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy http://www.waterfronttrail.org/partner-resource-center/publications#lake-ontario-greenway-strategy “Page 114 – Resolution of an acceptable trail alignment across Scarborough is still required, which depends in part on an evaluation of the feasibility and costs of a below-the-bluffs alternative through the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan.” 359 CORRESPONDENCE 8.6 360 "Dr. Gerard T. Arbour" 07/19/2017 03:27 PM To kstranks@trca.on.ca, cc bcc Subject Scarborough Waterfront Project July 18, 2017 Good Day Ms. Stranks. I would like this correspondence to be on the agenda for the upcoming meeting on Friday July 28, for which I would like to present personally. My name is Gerard T. Arbour, and have lived in the Scarborough Bluffs area for almost 25 years. I lived on top of the bluffs for 12 years on Fishleigh Drive, and was on the erosion control steering committee that designed the end of the project in the 1990's. Having seen the projections of erosion control rates dramatically fail for the project, i am an interested bystander as further erosion control measures are being undertaken to protect local homes and municipal infrastructure that are now in jeopardy. i have seen massive land slides, seen people trapped on the bluffs, had people scale the bluffs and attempt to camp in our yard; I think I have a little bit of credibility in what I have to say below. Although thankful that positive changes have been made to the Preferred Alternative for the Scarborough Waterfront Project, I believe that there is still room for much improvement and still have many concerns. My foremost concern is having a paved pathway at the base of the bluffs. As unnatural as this juxtaposition is with the bluffs as a backdrop, surely there must be a more environmentally natural and suitable option for a path that could be considered. The cost of future maintenance, repairs, protection from landslides surely could be factored into considering a more preferable natural option. Although pleased that the natural beach at Bluffers Park and east Point Park will be preserved, I believe more can be done to preserve natural stretches of beach below Grey Abbey Park. The loss of an entire stretch of natural beach is not consistent with the TRCA's mandate of conservation; preserving as much of this stretch of beach as possible should be paramount in the Preferred Alternative to maximize and conserve a natural waterfront experience. Losing this should not be the price for increased public accessibility. Recent events have highlighted how limitations in municipal planning from decades ago will be magnified by this project. Overflow of traffic from Bluffers Park at capacity is already placing undue strain on under amenitied neighbouring bluff top parks. Dead end streets and lack of parking are truly not being appreciated by the TRCA as limiting factors for overflow crowds from the waterfront. Port-o-potties and Municipal dumper bins for garbage disposal scattered all atop the bluffs are more fitting for a summer weekend carnival than as solutions for accommodating recurring visitors summer long in lakeside parks. There is very little parking available at the access points to the Scarborough Waterfront Project, most notably at Bluffers Park, Doris McCarthy Trail and the Guildwood Access road, especially with the revival of the Guild Estate in the case of the latter. Surely there must be some estimate of projected number of CORRESPONDENCE 8.7 361 future visitors that the project will bring, and whether neighbouring communities have the facilities to accommodate. How much thought has been invested in ensuring adequate parking, bathroom amenities, parking control staff, bylaw officers staffing, police staff for trespassing offences, and wildlife control staff for animals displaced from their natural corridors. These are things that must be considered. When it is Built, the people will come, and there must be some investment in local infrastructure, maintenanace, orderly conduct and animal safety. The trend for increasing number of gaudy signs and fences is detracting from the Natural bluffs experience. These seem to be having little deterrant value at the top of the bluffs from preventing individuals from stepping out to the bluffs edge; they are having zero value in deterring some from climbing the bluffs from the base. Will there be more fences and bright multilingual signs all along the base of the bluffs next to the paved pathway to add to the natural experience? I certainly hope not. A comprehensive public education campaign on the inherent danger of the bluffs, and suitable consequences for trespassing and endangering EMS workers is preferrable. The scope of the Scarborough waterfront Project will lead to dramatic increases on those scaling the bluffs along the entire route. With time, increasing slope stabilization will lead to new paths being formed from the base of the bluffs to the top. This is truly inevitable as is local natural animal population habit, and human habit seen in so called unofficial paths that have been made in the past. There will be increasing pressure on EMS services, change in traffic patterns, and residential privacy issues brought more into play with time. What is to stop a new path being formed from the base of the bluffs to Cudia Park for instance, and has this been factored in? I really do not think that enough due diligence has been considered on this issue as well. As the time approaches for the Preferred Alternative, please remember the TRCA's mandate is conservation. Much of this project will dramatically hasten the transformation of natural bluffs into slopes, especially when measures will need to be taken to protect the paved paths from land slides. Keeping in mind that the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project is being extended up to 150 meters, in next generational thinking the Scarborough Bluffs may well become known as the Scarborough Bluff at Bluffers Park; the remainder will be the Scarborough Slopes. Please be respectful to conserve natural beaches, bluffs, wildlife corridors and ecosystems in any further thought toward this ambitious project. Less project will truly be more for preservation and conservation of the Natural Bluffs. Any project of this massive scope and scale must have some appropriate thought and investment into how the local communities are prepared for such a change in natural corridors and how it can adapt to such an increase in local human traffic. Municipal planning from the 1950's is not appropriate for current traffic and pedestrian numbers, never mind what the unstudied Scarborough Waterfront Project will do to those numbers. Thank you for your consideration, Dr. Gerard T. Arbour Spam Phish/Fraud Not spam Forget previous vote 362 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES.#A134/17 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT the Committee move into closed session to discuss item 9.1 – Appointment of Chief Executive Officer, as it pertains to personnel matters. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES.#A135/17 Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT the Committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED RES.#A136/17 - APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: David Barrow THAT John Mackenzie be appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; THAT the appointment be effective November 6, 2017; AND FURTHER THAT the Chair of the Authority conduct performance appraisals with John Mackenzie during the sixth and twelfth months of the appointment, and annually thereafter.CARRIED ______________________________ 363 RES.#A137/17 - SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Refined Preferred Alternative. Endorsement of the Scarborough Waterfront Project’s Refined Preferred Alternative, and direction to proceed to City of Toronto Council for approval to submit the final Environmental Assessment report to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT the concept design for the Refined Preferred Alternative as identified in the Individual Environmental Assessment for the Scarborough Waterfront Project be endorsed; THAT the Technical Advisory Committee and Stakeholder Committee be thanked for their involvement and contribution throughout the Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment process; AND FURTHER THAT direction be given to proceed to City of Toronto Council for approval to submit the final Environmental Assessment Report to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. AMENDMENT Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT the staff recommendations be adopted with the following amendments: THAT staff review refinement to the trail so that the trail continues on its east/west route along the top of the bluffs from the Dow Chemical site, using a span bridge over the Grey Abbey ravine and then continuing along the top of the bluffs through Grey Abbey Park to approximately 220 Grey Abbey Trail, before rejoining the lakefront trail at the waters edge and continuing west to Bluffers Park, in order to protect an additional estimated 600 metres of sandy shoreline in the Grey Abbey area; THAT staff in partnership with Toronto develop a transparent public process to deal with detailed design, including the following, amongst other matters: THAT TRCA staff aim to maximize the creation of new sandy beaches during the detailed design process along the entire length of the Scarborough Waterfront Trail including the goal of creating a minimum of 400 metres of new sandy beach; THAT TRCA staff continue to maximize the protection of existing waves and creation of new waves for the windsurfing community during the detailed design process, including a $500,000 allocation to create a new underwater shoal that maximizes both surfing opportunities and fisheries habitat with the goal of providing a net benefit to the surfing community; 364 THAT TRCA staff work with the windsurfing community and local waterfront municipalities to acknowledge, support and enhance windsurfing opportunities across the Toronto region; THAT TRCA request the City of Toronto to consider: a)ways to increase parking at the base of the bluffs as well as by other means; b)ways to significantly increase the supply of washroom facilities at the Waterfront Trail and Pan Am Path and at other locations; c) separated bike/pedestrian path; That staff examine ways and means, during the detailed design process, to create a boat dock and blue flag beach at the Guild Inn location as well as resting, picnic and play areas along the entire length of the waterfront trail. That TRCA staff work with City of Toronto staff and the family of the late Councillor Ron Moeser and local community associations, to consider naming a part of the waterfront trail in his honour. OUT OF ORDER The Chair has ruled the first paragraph of the amendment Out of Order as it is contrary to the main motion. Glenn De Baeremaeker has Challenged the Ruling of the Chair. RECORDED VOTE Maria Augimeri Abstain Paul Ainslie Yea Jack Ballinger Yea David Barrow Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Nay Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Michael Ford Nay Jack Heath Yea Brenda Hogg Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Maria Kelleher Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Linda Pabst Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Nay THE RULING OF THE CHAIR IS CARRIED 365 AMENDMENT (Minus the first paragraph as per the upheld Ruling of the Chair) RECORDED VOTE Maria Augimeri Nay Paul Ainslie Nay Jack Ballinger Nay David Barrow Nay Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Jennifer Drake Nay Chris Fonseca Nay Michael Ford Yea Jack Heath Nay Brenda Hogg Nay Jennifer Innis Nay Colleen Jordan Nay Maria Kelleher Nay Matt Mahoney Nay Glenn Mason Nay Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Linda Pabst Nay John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Nay THE AMENDMENT IS NOT CARRIED NEW MOTION Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT the following be referred to staff for a report in October: THAT staff review refinement to the trail so that the trail continues on its east/west route along the top of the bluffs from the Dow Chemical site, using a span bridge over the Grey Abbey ravine and then continuing along the top of the bluffs through Grey Abbey Park to approximately 220 Grey Abbey Trail, before rejoining the lakefront trail at the waters edge and continuing west to Bluffers Park, in order to protect an additional estimated 600 metres of sandy shoreline in the Grey Abbey area. NEW MOTION RECORDED VOTE Maria Augimeri Nay Paul Ainslie Nay Jack Ballinger Yea David Barrow Nay Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Jennifer Drake Nay Chris Fonseca Nay Michael Ford Yea Jack Heath Nay Brenda Hogg Yea 366 RECORDED VOTE Cont’d Jennifer Innis Nay Colleen Jordan Nay Maria Kelleher Nay Matt Mahoney Nay Glenn Mason Nay Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Nay Linda Pabst Nay John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Nay THE NEW MOTION IS NOT CARRIED MAIN MOTION RECORDED VOTE Maria Augimeri Yea Paul Ainslie Yea Jack Ballinger Yea David Barrow Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Chris Fonseca Yea Michael Ford Nay Jack Heath Yea Brenda Hogg Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Colleen Jordan Yea Maria Kelleher Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Linda Pabst Yea Anthony Perruzza Yea John Sprovieri Yea Jim Tovey Yea THE MAIN MOTION IS CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto City Council on December 16, 2013 adopted, in part, the following resolution (EX.36.17): City Council amend the Toronto Water budget by including $1.5 million for Environmental Assessment work on the Scarborough Waterfront Erosion Control and Access Plan, with funding from the Toronto Water Capital Reserve. At Authority Meeting #3/14, held on April 25, 2014, Resolution #A36/14 was approved, in part, as follows: 367 … THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with the City of Toronto to initiate the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan Individual Environmental Assessment. Based on this direction, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in partnership with the City of Toronto, initiated a study in 2014 under the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) to create a system of public spaces along the Lake Ontario shoreline between Bluffer’s Park and East Point Park, which respect and protect the significant natural and cultural features of the Scarborough Bluffs, enhance the terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and provide a safe and enjoyable waterfront experience. This section of the Scarborough waterfront has been the subject of many studies seeking to understand stressors on the ecosystem, public access issues, and the nature of public safety and property risks posed by shoreline erosion. While the Scarborough Bluffs are an iconic feature of the Lake Ontario shoreline, due to limited public access and existing public safety hazards, the water’s edge along this section of the waterfront is not formally accessible to the public. Ultimately, the Scarborough Waterfront Project (SWP) has the potential to provide formal public access along a currently inaccessible area of the Scarborough waterfront between Bluffer’s Park and East Point Park, while comprehensively addressing the risks to public safety and public property, and enhancing the natural heritage system. The SWP will fulfill the strategic recommendations of previous planning processes and the City of Toronto Council direction, to address the existing risk to public safety and public infrastructure due to erosion along the shoreline, and providing for increased public space while improving and enhancing the natural heritage system. The Project supports and advances The Living City Policies of TRCA, and the City of Toronto policies laid out in the Official Plan, which recognize the need to balance waterfront revitalization, public access, and an open space “aesthetic” with natural heritage and natural hazard protection and management. Public ownership of waterfront lands is a key means to managing natural hazards, while providing accessible open space integrated with opportunities for public enjoyment and aquatic and terrestrial enhancements. The study was undertaken in accordance with the Provincial Environmental Assessment Act (1990), as an objectives-based Individual Environmental Assessment (EA), where the Project Vision and Objectives were established early in the planning process through extensive public and stakeholder consultation, and are used to describe the Project and structure the development and evaluation of Alternatives. Ultimately, a Preferred Alternative was identified which best meets the Vision and Objectives (the ‘Preferred Alternative’). The Project Objectives are to: Protect and enhance terrestrial and aquatic natural heritage features and linkages; Manage public safety and property risk; Provide an enjoyable waterfront experience; Consistency and coordination with other initiatives; and, Achieve value for cost. Summary of EA Process The Environmental Assessment for the SWP was completed in two stages as required by the EA Act. Stage one included the completion and approval of a Terms of Reference. The purpose of the Terms of Reference was to describe how the EA should be carried out and to provide the public, agencies and Aboriginal communities with an opportunity to comment prior to proceeding with the study. TRCA completed the Terms of Reference and it was approved by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) on December 15, 2015. Stage two of the Project included the completion of the EA and preparation of the EA Report in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference. 368 Summary of Consultation Consultation is an integral component of the EA process, and was a core principle of the SWP. Consultation activities were initiated early in the process, and engaged with a range of interested stakeholders through a variety of forums and avenues. A Stakeholder Committee, representing the various recreational users, interests, community groups, associations and local residents from across the Project Study Area, was established early in the process. The purpose of the Stakeholder Committee was to assist the Project Team in identifying and understanding potential opportunities and concerns, in order to consider them early in the process. A total of 12 Stakeholder Committee meetings were held, with four as part of the Terms of Reference (ToR) phase, and eight as part of the EA phase. In addition to the Stakeholder Committee, a total of five Public Information Centres (PICs) were held, with two as part of the ToR phase, and three as part of the EA phase. PICs were held at key milestones to present new information, and seek feedback from the broader public. Further, direct community engagement activities were undertaken, which included individual meetings with landowners, community associations and groups, interested stakeholders, as well as outreach at Bluffer’s Park and East Point, organized events (including shoreline tours), and attendance at local community events. All comments and feedback received was considered and is documented as part of the EA. Summary of Comments The Project has received significant public interest, with over 150 participants at each of the Public Information Centres and over 2,400 public comments received through over 400 submissions and the PICs. Comments received reflect a wide range of viewpoints, including a desire for a formal, continuous trail along the full length of the shoreline, a desire for no additional formal access along the waterfront, and support for the Refined Preferred Alternative as presented at the third PIC on June 28, 2017. There are proponents advocating for maintaining the existing sandy shoreline east of the Guild Construction Access Route in its current state. The section of shoreline in question is a combination of publicly- and privately-owned lots that can only be accessed by crossing private property or by informal trail down the bluff face. The SWP seeks to manage this inappropriate use such that those who wish to access the shoreline can do so in a way which minimizes damage to the sensitive ecosystem of the bluff face and is respectful of the local communities. In contrast, there are also proponents for continuous, formal, trail along the full base of the Bluffs. Both of these options were considered in the range of Alternatives put forward early in the EA process, and were determined to not achieve the Vision and Objectives as well as the Preferred Alternative. Recently, concern regarding potential impacts to one of the identified surfing locations at Bluffer’s Park has been received. The Project Team has committed to continuing to engage with the surfing community, and other stakeholders, through the detailed design process. 369 Overview of the Preferred Alternative In response to public, agency and stakeholder consultation, refinements were undertaken to the shoreline protection which reduced the overall footprint; further enhanced the aquatic habitat; increased the length of sand shoreline maintained; and minimized the size of cobble required along the proposed cobble beaches. In order to maximize the extent of sandy shoreline left in its existing condition in the East Segment, shoreline protection was shortened by approximately 650m, terminating on the eastern side of Grey Abbey Ravine. The need for new shoreline protection within the East Segment considered a number of factors, including the rate of bluff toe erosion; risk to public safety and public infrastructure; provision of formal public access to the water’s edge; and opportunities to address current unmanaged access to and along the shoreline, which is resulting in damage to the sensitive vegetation communities. If the shoreline below Grey Abbey Park remains unprotected, Grey Abbey Park and the public infrastructure along the western half of Greyabbey Trail (i.e., the road and associated infrastructure) would be at risk from toe erosion and subsequent crest migration within approximately 60 years. If toe erosion is considered over the 100 year horizon specified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Foresty’s (MNRF) guidelines for planning, that infrastructure is at risk now. This risk can be managed with appropriate shoreline protection works. While this section of the shoreline is accessed by some members of the public, it is currently inaccessible due to private property. There is a demand for access to this area of the shoreline, and the SWP not only addresses the risk to public infrastructure, but moves the shoreline into public ownership, while providing access to users of all abilities. East of Grey Abbey Ravine, while bluff toe erosion will continue, there is no public infrastructure along the tablelands at risk within the planning horizon of the Project. Formal public access is proposed to transition from the shoreline to the tablelands at the east side of Grey Abbey Ravine. This transition will be achieved through the use of a free-standing structure, such as a corkscrew ramp or staircase, to be explored further at detailed design. Moving the formal access from the shoreline in this area necessitates the need for private property tableland acquisition from the adjacent industrial facility. Access along the tablelands will be sufficiently setback to provide safe public access and ensure that the trail will not be affected by erosion within its lifespan. In general, the setback will be 5 – 15m; however, in some areas where erosion and crest migration is more active, the setback will be greater. All potentially affected private property owners have been engaged during the EA process; however, property acquisition discussions cannot be commenced until following a positive decision from MOECC. Overall the Preferred Alternative: addresses the existing risk to public safety by providing continuous formal public access outside of the risk line, along the water’s edge between Bluffer’s Park and East Point; formalizes long-term shoreline protection along areas of the shoreline currently protected by interim works (e.g., base of Doris McCarthy Trail / Bellamy Ravine and Guild Park and Gardens shoreline); addresses the risk from erosion to Grey Abbey Park and the public infrastructure along Greyabbey Trail; provides public access along the shoreline in sections where it is currently restricted by private property and critical infrastructure; 370 contributes to minor improvements in water quality by reusing flows from existing stormwater outfalls in the creation of backshore wet features; results in 17.6 ha of new naturalized habitat and enhancement of nearshore aquatic habitat along the shoreline; results in a net benefit to the sensitive habitats at East Point Park by decommissioning approximately 8 km of informal trails, which are currently fragmenting the ecosystem and resulting in trampling and other impacts from unmanaged use; addresses the ongoing need for annual dredging at the Bluffer’s Park marina entrance, by reducing the sedimentation through the proposed headland expansion; and, improved access to and along the shoreline for all abilities. The total capital investment for the SWP is estimated to be $170 million, over a 12 year implementation period, and additional post-implementation reporting and monitoring. Given the conceptual level of detail considered in the EA, and annual inflation over the course of the Project, the estimated capital investment includes a healthy contingency of 50%. The total capital investment will continue to be refined during the detailed design process, as concepts are further refined. RATIONALE The Refined Preferred Alternative was identified as meeting the Project Vision and Objectives to the best extent. Overall, the SWP results in improvements to aquatic and terrestrial habitat, improved public access to the water’s edge which is removed from the hazard risk associated with bluff erosion, a waterfront experience accessible to more people of all abilities, and a project compatible with local, regional and lake wide plans and policies related to the natural and human environment. A robust consultation program has been undertaken to-date, with all comments considered and documented as part of the EA. The Draft and Final EA submissions will provide further opportunities for public and agency review and comment. FINANCIAL DETAILS There are no additional costs anticipated with the completion of the Scarborough Waterfront Project EA process, as remaining costs associated with the submission and review process are anticipated to be accounted for within the existing budget provided by Toronto Water. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The draft Environmental Assessment is anticipated to be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change in mid-August 2017 for a 45-day public and agency review period. Comments received as part of the draft review period will inform the finalization of the EA Report. It is anticipated that approval to submit the final SWP EA will be sought from the City of Toronto Executive Committee and City of Toronto Council in late 2017, with a final EA submission to MOECC in late-2017. Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney@trca.on.ca Date: July 6, 2017 Attachments: 3 371 42 Attachment 1 372 43 Attachment 2 373 44 Attachment 3 374 RES.#A138/17 - SEWAGE BYPASS REPORTING ACT, 2017 Bill 141: An Act to Amend the Ontario Water Resources Act with Respect to the Public Reporting of Sewage Bypassing. Status report on Sewage Bypass Reporting Act, 2017, Bill 141: An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act with respect to the public reporting of sewage bypassing. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff track the Sewage Bypass Reporting Act, 2017, Bill 141 as it progresses through Committee and is eventually posted to the Environmental Bill of Rights, at which time TRCA can provide recommendations and, if appropriate, a statement of support. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Committee Meeting #4/17, held on June 9, 2017, staff was directed to report to the Authority on the Sewage Bypass Reporting Act, 2017. Bill 141 will require the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to publish incidents of sewage treatment plant bypasses into waterways, within 24 hours of occurrence. The provincial Environmental Certificate of Approval for sewage plants already requires municipalities to report any spills or bypasses to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). Bill 141 is available at http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/41_Parliament/Session2/b141_e.pdf. RATIONALE On May 31, 2017, Sylvia Jones, MPP Dufferin-Caledon, introduced Private Members Bill 141 at Queen's Park which proposes to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act to require municipalities that own or operate a water treatment facility, or persons who operate such a facility under an agreement with or with the consent of a municipality, to report certain information to MOECC in cases where sewage has bypassed the plant and been diverted into waters where such diversion may impair water quality. The Bill further requires the Ministry to publish this information. Staff agrees on the merits of keeping the public informed and are therefore generally supportive of the Bill's intent. Currently, staff is in the process of seeking input from member municipalities who operate sewage plants and, based on their feedback, will prepare review comments for future consideration by the Authority. TRCA staff will monitor the Bill as it progresses through the Committee process and is posted to the Environmental Bill of Rights. At that time, and with the benefit of input from Ministry and municipal staff, TRCA will be better informed and able to provide more robust comments on the legislation. As this legislation proceeds there will be opportunity for all municipalities in Ontario which operate sewage plants to be engaged. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will monitor the progress of the Bill as it is considered by the Committee and is eventually posted to the Environmental Bill of Rights. TRCA staff to participate in any future consultations with MOECC and seek municipal staff input to become better informed in order to submit future recommendations to the Authority. For Information contact: Gary Bowen, 416-271-8944 Emails: gbowen@trca.on.ca Date: June 28, 2017 375 RES.#A139/17 - DROPBIKE BIKE-SHARE SERVICES Pilot Program at TRCA Facilities. Partnership with Dropbike to offer bike- share services at TRCA facilities. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Paul Ainslie WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has received a proposal to pilot Dropbike bikes-share services at selected TRCA facilities; AND WHEREAS TRCA’s Building The Living City: 10 Year Strategic Plan 2013-2022, identifies well planned neighbourhoods for easy access to employment, school, recreation and amenities as critical components in developing sustainable communities, one of the four pillars of The Living City vision; AND WHEREAS such services support TRCA’s strategic objectives to have more people engaging with nature more often, and in activities that help improve their health and well- being; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff work with Dropbike to determine the necessary details and agreements for Dropbike to provide bike-share services on selected TRCA properties as part of a one year pilot program; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back on the pilot program after one full year of delivery. CARRIED BACKGROUND Dropbike is a private organization that offers smart bike sharing through a smart phone application and using existing bike parking infrastructure. Dropbike operates by users scanning the QR code on the bike with their smartphone to receive a combination to unlock the bike. Following the completion of the trip, users can park the Dropbike at any ‘haven’, a pre-existing bike parking infrastructure. Riders are charged a set per hour fee and are subject to a $50 refundable deposit. In addition to regular bikes, Dropbike provides an option for mountain bikes as well for users searching different types of activities. Dropbike is also able to use adaptive havens through combining temporary bike parking posts for large events such as sporting events, music festivals and parades as the need arises. Dropbike uses bike warrior teams to perform regular maintenance on their bikes and to quickly respond to issues on the ground. The user is also supported by a customer service team through the mobile application. To date, Dropbike has not experienced any vandalism of their bikes or any unusual maintenance requirements. With the use of an analytics system, Dropbike monitors where users pick up and park the bikes and is able to achieve greater infrastructure construction to support the bike sharing system in centrally located areas. Dropbike currently operates at the University of Toronto’s St. George campus in Toronto and at Queen’s university and downtown in Kingston, Ontario. 376 Dropbike has approached TRCA to determine opportunities to provide bike-share services for TRCA property users for travel between properties and across TRCA’s partner municipalities. RATIONALE Dropbike’s services benefit three groups that are well-aligned with TRCA’s The Living City vision: Residents – affordable, accessible and healthy active transportation options. Environment – year-round lower emissions through encouraging sustainable transit even in winter months. Cities – reduced congestion, insights on transportation data, local jobs. In general, bikes for Dropbike’s program are 20 times cheaper than the traditional bike sharing systems, making them a more affordable option for riders. This model has a low barrier to participation for both users and host sites. Dropbike supports the vision and directions of many of TRCA and affiliated partner’s policies including: TRCA’s Building The Living City: 10 Year Strategic Plan 2013-2022; TRCA’s climate change mitigation and carbon neutral approach; Directions that TRCA is developing as part of its trail strategy; Active and sustainable transportation initiatives of the regional municipalities of Durham, Peel and York, and the City of Toronto; Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s province-wide cycling network; Ontario’s Five Year Climate Change Action Plan (2016-2020). The intention of the initial partnership project is to determine appropriate TRCA locations for Dropbike bike-share services and to test these locations as Dropbike havens for one year. After that time, the program will be evaluated to determine if and how the partnership will continue. TRCA staff has identified the following themes in regards to the logistics of Dropbike operations at TRCA properties through scoping discussions of opportunities: 1. Appropriate Locations TRCA is able to work alongside Dropbike to determine appropriate sites within the pilot locations as havens for bike parking. TRCA staff has recognized that high-visibility locations with staff nearby, surveillance video coverage, and proximity to public transportation stops and programming areas are some of the factors that may influence site selection. 2. Risk Management and Liability TRCA considers the safety of visitors to TRCA facilities and wants to ensure that TRCA acts to reduce the risks to its visitors. There are known risks to cycling and these could be shared by Dropbike and TRCA when Dropbike bikes are being used on TRCA property. TRCA requires all cyclists to wear helmets while cycling on TRCA property as a means to reduce risks. In addition, TRCA trail users are presented with liability waiver signage at main authorized trail entrances on TRCA-managed properties. Both TRCA and Dropbike have insurance coverage. Details about how risks can be minimized, how TRCA liability can be reduced and Dropbike’s insurance coverage requirements will be discussed through the development of the pilot project agreement. 377 3. Revenues and Costs There are no infrastructure costs involved in having Dropbike on TRCA properties. Additional cost requirements and revenues to cover these costs would be determined through the development of the pilot project agreement. Dropbike is also amendable to make changes to its fee structure for TRCA-sited havens and trips. 4. Haven Locations, Programming and Events Dropbike bikes will enable users to travel within TRCA properties and participate in various recreational and educational programming offered at TRCA sites. TRCA staff will also have the ability to further support various events and festivals by promoting the availability of Dropbike bikes at its properties to attract more attendees. 5. User Data Dropbike has indicated that it is able to share the data collected with respect to havens at TRCA sites. This will further improve TRCA’s quantitative and qualitative knowledge about visitors. The frequency of data delivery will be determined through the development of the pilot program agreement. 6. Repairs and Vandalism To ensure that repairs are completed in a timely manner, once notified through the app about a bike needing repair, Dropbike dispatches bike warriors and managers who ensure daily repair on the bikes. If the bike is unable to be repaired, it is then sent to a local bike shop. TRCA will not have responsibility for maintenance operations. However, TRCA staff is encouraged to contact Dropbike if TRCA staff notices that a bike is in need of repair. To ensure accountability of users, Dropbike has used anti-theft screws in its bikes as well as created a system where users must take a picture of the bike following the end of the trip to ensure the bike is in good condition. 7. Effective and Prompt Communication Users will be able to easily communicate with Dropbike staff through the app at any given time. Dropbike staff is able to respond by phone call or text to any concerns within a three minute window. There is great potential for success at many TRCA facilities. Numerous TRCA staff groups involved in initial project scoping have indicated support for the Dropbike pilot program as a means to get people to and around TRCA sites. Based on initial TRCA and Dropbike discussion, initial sites for a one-year pilot project with Dropbike could include Tommy Thompson Park, Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve and Albion Hills Conservation Area. The potential for Dropbike service to be available at TRCA’s Bike the Creek event was also identified. These sites represent TRCA properties with the most opportunity of getting users to TRCA sites through active transportation and enabling them to travel around the properties as part of TRCA programming. The final pilot sites will be determined through the pilot program agreement negotiations. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA’s pilot project expenses are expected to be limited to staff time and are accounted for in existing budgets. Details on revenue generated from the pilot project will be determined through the pilot program agreement that will be developed. 378 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following the endorsement of this bike sharing pilot program, TRCA staff will work alongside Dropbike to develop the details of the pilot program, including haven locations and the terms of the agreement. Staff will work with Dropbike to identify central community hubs on TRCA properties that will connect users to facilities through the use of trails. Dropbike will further encourage local residents to use the bikes located at the above-mentioned community hubs to connect to various amenities and facilities across TRCA properties and partner municipalities. Report prepared by: Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204; Zahrah Khan Email: dcheriton@trca.on.ca; zkhan@trca.on.ca For more information contact: Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204; Mike Bender, extension 5281 Email: dcheriton@trca.on.ca; mbender@trca.on.ca Date: July 6, 2017 ______________________________ 379 RES.#A140/17 - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MATERIALS Contract #10004654 – Vendor of Record. Award of Contract #10004654 for the supply and delivery of various erosion and sediment control (ESC) materials to various Toronto and Region Conservation Authority work sites, from August 1, 2017 to July 31, 2018. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of environmental initiatives that require the procurement of a significant volume of erosion and sediment control (ESC) materials; AND WHEREAS TRCA issued a Request for Tender for the supply and delivery of various ESC materials to TRCA project sites that was evaluated based on cost; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendors of Record (VOR) arrangement with two suppliers for a contract value less than $20,000 per occurrence, for a one year period, with the option to extend the contract for an additional period of 12 months, upon written notification by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA implements numerous environmental projects of varying scale throughout TRCA’s jurisdiction. The implementation or construction of these initiatives is governed by environmental legislation and regulations that have been enacted to guide construction activities away from negative environment impacts. The first line of defense against those environmental impacts is the use of erosion and sediment control materials. ESC materials provide physical boundaries within a construction project that prevent soil particles from entering waterways, filter surface water runoff or moderate the erosive power of water traveling through a construction site. In order to comply with construction regulations, erosion and sediment control materials are required for TRCA projects on a regular basis. These types of projects include the following: waterfront development and remedial shoreline protection; habitat enhancement and regeneration projects; and bank/slope/channel stabilization projects. In previous years, TRCA would undertake multiple procurement processes to source materials for its project requirements. To improve efficiencies and assist staff during the peak construction season, TRCA is establishing a Vendors of Record list for the supply and delivery of various types of ESC materials for up to $20,000 per occurrence. Any material requests that exceed this threshold are subject to TRCA’s Purchasing Policy and procurement procedures. The establishment of this VOR will help to ensure a vendor is available to deliver quality materials when needed at competitive pricing, while reducing procurement costs. 380 RATIONALE Request for Tender (RFT) documents were publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on Tuesday, May 30, 2017. The tender provided specifications and estimated quantities for 40 different types of erosion and sediment control materials. Suppliers were requested to provide fixed unit pricing, including a separate cost for delivery. Request for Tender documents were received by 19 suppliers, three of which submitted a bid. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the tenders on June 21, 2017. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Aaron D’Souza, James Dickie and Natalie Racette) reviewed the submissions and evaluated them based on cost. The results of the evaluation are as follows: Bidders Total Cost (excluding delivery and HST) Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc. $338,773.00 Hanes GeoComponents $345,138.50 Devron Sales Ltd. $732,741.50 Based on the total cost, it was determined that Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc. and Hanes GeoComponents were the most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc. and Hanes GeoComponents, they being the two suppliers that best meet TRCA specifications. Staff will determine the most appropriate vendor to supply the materials based on product availability, cost, and delivery fees. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of this contract is estimated to be $350,000 based on a review of projects scheduled for implementation during the contract period and a review of previous work orders completed in 2016. An increase or decrease in workload will have an impact on the value of this contract. The suppliers understand the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. ESC materials will be supplied on an “as required” basis with no minimum quantities guaranteed. Funds required for the contract are identified in TRCA’s 2017 and 2018 capital budgets. Report prepared by: Natalie Racette, extension 5603 Emails: nracette@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Aaron D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: ajdsousa@trca.on.ca Date: July 6, 2017 ______________________________ 381 RES.#A141/17 - I-365 SANITARY PROTECTION PROJECT NEAR 196 BRADWICK DRIVE Award of Contract #10004141. Award of Contract #10004141 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials for the construction of a rip rap riffle and bank treatment for the I-365 Sanitary Infrastructure Protection Project near 196 Bradwick Drive, in the City of Vaughan, York Region. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Contract #10004141 for the supply of all labour, equipment, and materials necessary for the construction of a rip rap riffle and bank treatment for the I-365 Sanitary Protection Project near 196 Bradwick Drive, in the City of Vaughan, York Region be awarded to Dynex Construction Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $208,007.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2011, TRCA and The Regional Municipality of York (York Region) in partnership developed the Infrastructure Hazard Monitoring Program (IHMP). The purpose of the IHMP is to ensure timely identification of risk to Region-owned infrastructure from riverbank erosion and slope instability, as well as establish a comprehensive prioritization method to plan remedial works. This partnership between York Region and TRCA facilitates shared knowledge and expertise, reduces overall costs and duplication of monitoring and erosion control works, supports the Region’s asset management program, and promotes habitat restoration throughout the watersheds in York Region. The IHMP identified a high priority site (I-365) along a section of the West Don River between Langstaff Road and Rivermede Road that is in need of erosion control works to protect two trunk sanitary mains that are at risk of being exposed. The study area is subject to erosion from downcutting, gullying and bank scouring. These processes have altered the channel form and reduced the depth of cover over the buried sanitary mains to only 0.3 metres at the closest distance. Recognizing this risk, Greck and Associates Ltd (GAL) was obtained by TRCA in 2014 to develop detailed designs for erosion control works at the site. The project was subsequently placed on hold in 2015 and 2016 as other priorities had to be addressed first with the available budget. On May 24, 2017, York Region received grant funding through the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund (CWWF) from Infrastructure Canada and Infrastructure Ontario for TRCA to proceed with implementation of this project. 382 The scope of work includes the construction of a rip rap riffle, rock vortex weirs and bank protections to formalize a pool-riffle sequence for long-term sanitary infrastructure protection. Site restoration works will include native tree and shrub plantings, granular trail restoration and asphalt repaving. Implementation for this contract is tentatively scheduled to begin August 28, 2017, and will conform to the warm water fisheries timing window (July 1st – March 31st annually). Substantial completion of construction and restoration works is anticipated by October 31, 2017. RATIONALE I-365 Sanitary Infrastructure Protection Project is part of a series of seven York Region sanitary infrastructure erosion hazard sites that are to be completed using CWWF grants from Infrastructure Canada and Infrastructure Ontario by March 31, 2018. It is understood that Restoration and Infrastructure personnel and resources are currently operating at full capacity for the forseeable future, therefore staff recommends contracting the work to ensure the project is completed on time as per the conditions of the CWWF grant. A Request for Pre-Qualification (RFPQ) for Contract #10004141 was publically advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on March 23, 2017 with 14 contractors being registered as full document takers. TRCA received pre-qualification packages from six general contractors by the closing date of April 4, 2017. Following TRCA staff’s review of pre-qualification packages and internal/external reference checks, a total of four contractors were pre-qualified. The pre-qualified contractors include: Bronte Construction Ltd. Dynex Construction Inc. Trisan Construction Varcon Construction Corp. The Request for Tender (RFT) documents were issued to the four pre-qualified contractors on June 15, 2017 and each contractor attended the mandatory site information meeting on June 20, 2017. The Tender closed at 11:00 am on June 29, 2017 at TRCA’s Head Office. Two tenders were received by the closing time from Dynex Construction Inc. and Varcon Construction Corp. Tenders were opened by the procurement opening committee (Jessica Pietrangelo, Judith Reda and Phil Wolfraim) with representatives from each bidder company present. The results of the tender are as follows: BIDDERS TOTAL TENDER AMOUNT (Plus HST) OVERALL RANKING Dynex Construction Inc. $208,007.00 1 Varcon Construction Corp. $691,855.00 2 Out of the four bidders that attended the mandatory site meeting, two contractors (Bronte Construction Ltd. and Trisan Construction) declined the opportunity to submit a bid due to pre-existing commitments and peak workloads. TRCA staff contacted Varcon Construction Corp. to identify the disparity in tender prices. Varcon Construction Corp. cited that their organization does not currently own a temporary construction bridge crossing and that they would incur a large capital cost to purchase this structure for this project, and no further justification was provided. It is also staff’s opinion that Varcon Construction Corp. is the least experienced of all pre-qualified contractors with natural channel erosion control works and that this may account for a more conservative bid. 383 Restoration and Infrastructure staff reviewed the bid received from Dynex Construction Inc. against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. TRCA staff predicted the tender would quote approximately $200,000 based on our own internal cost estimate. Further, Dynex Construction Inc.’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was evaluated by TRCA staff during the pre-qualification process. Reference checks and TRCA’s past experience working with the company (Mud Creek Restoration – Reach 6) provided positive indication that Dynex Construction Inc. is capable of undertaking erosion control works in streambank settings to protect municipal infrastructure. TRCA staff recommends that Contract #10004141 be awarded to Dynex Construction Inc. for a total cost not to exceed $208,007.00, plus a 15% contingency, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder meeting TRCA’s specifications. Under TRCA’s 10-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2022), this project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #2 “Manage our Regional Water Resources for Current and Future Generations.” The proposed works will contribute to maximizing the resilience of our water systems by protecting critical infrastructure in preparation for predicted changes in climate change and assist with reducing the risk of flooding. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is made available through York Region Capital funding. York Region has received grant funding through the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund (CWWF) from Infrastructure Canada and Infrastructure Ontario to cover costs for this project. Expenditures are to be tracked under Account Code 189-02. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The objective of this project is to provide long-term sanitary infrastructure protection to at-risk York Region sanitary infrastructure. The scope of work for Contract #10004141 includes the construction of a rip rap riffle, rock vortex weirs, and bank protections to formalize a pool-riffle sequence for infrastructure protection. Site restoration works will include native tree and shrub plantings, granular trail restoration and asphalt repaving. Report prepared by: Rebecca Salvatore, 416-560-1823 Emails: rebecca.salvatore@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Phil Wolfraim, 416-902-3709 Emails: phil.wolfraim@trca.on.ca Date: July 7, 2017 Attachments: 2 384 ^ B R A D W I C K D R CON N I E C R E S A U D I A C R T BOWES R D N R I V E R M E D E R D R A Y E T T E R D LANGSTAFF R D 0 100 200 Meters F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2017] May Not be Reprod uced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend ^Project Location Watercourses ! ! ! ! ! !Flood line Regulation Limit TRCA Property Parcel Assessment PROJECTLOCATION # W e s t D o n Riv er ^SITE Attachment 1 385 ^ B R A D W I C K D R CON N I E C R E S A U D I A C R T BOWES R D N R I V E R M E D E R D R A Y E T T E R D LANGSTAFF R D 0 100 200 Meters F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2017] May Not be Reprod uced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend ^Project Location Watercourses Flood line Regulation Limit TRCA Property Parcel Assessment PROJECTLOCATION # W e s t D o n Riv er ^SITE Attachment 2 386 RES.#A142/17 - COATSWORTH CUT PROJECT Channel Dredging Works. Award of Contract #10005203 to complete maintenance dredging of the Coatsworth Cut Channel by Ashbridges Bay Park in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Contract #10005203 be awarded to Galcon Marine Ltd. for the channel dredging at Coatsworth Cut in the City of Toronto, at a total cost not to exceed $201,960.00 plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures, as per City of Toronto direction, to a maximum of $30,294.00 as a contingency allowance, for removal of additional sediment from the channel to reduce the risk of future emergency situations if it is not required to complete the base scope of work; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1983, TRCA began dredging operations at the mouth of Coatsworth Cut to maintain navigation between Lake Ontario and the boating facilities located at Ashbridge’s Bay Park. As a result of increasing dredging volumes and associated expenses over time, in 1999 TRCA began to investigate shoreline modification options that would eliminate the need for annual maintenance dredging. Currently the long-term solution to the sedimentation problem in Coatsworth Cut is being addressed through a number of planning initiatives; however, TRCA plans to continue with maintenance dredging until such time that the final solution is in place and sedimentation rates are confirmed to be declining in response. As of the date this communication was prepared, implementation of the preferred long-term solution is expected to commence in 2018 pending receipt of the necessary approvals and funding with work anticipating to take 4 - 6 years to complete. Maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut was last completed in the fall of 2016 with the removal of approximately 4,500 cubic metres of material. The dredged material was tested and deemed to meet parkland quality guidelines for disposal at Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) for use in the construction of habitat projects within the park. RATIONALE This project is aligned with leadership strategy number two in TRCA’s new strategic plan, as ensuring safe navigation of our waterways is an important component of successfully managing our water resources for current and future generations. 387 Ongoing deposition reduces available water depth in the channel, creating a hazard to boaters and limiting marine-based emergency access if not addressed. To reduce the risk of property damage and personal injury, TRCA proposes to dredge approximately 2,200 cubic metres of material under this project. Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in early October 2017, pending authorization to award Contract #10005203 and the receipt of all necessary approvals. This contract is anticipated to take approximately five weeks to complete, weather permitting. Sediment sampling has been completed and dredged material is to be removed using a combination of water- and land-based equipment and off-site disposal is to take place at TTP for use in the construction of on-site habitat projects as part of the master plan implementation. Request for Tender (RFT) #10005203 was publically advertised on www.biddingo.com on June 14, 2017, and a mandatory site information meeting was held on June 22, 2017. The following contractors attended this meeting: Galcon Marine Ltd.; and Ontario Construction Company. Bids were opened at the Procurement Opening Committee meeting held on July 6, 2017 by TRCA staff (James Dickie, Judith Reda and Jessica Pietrangelo). The table below summarizes the results of RFT #10005203 assuming removal of 2,200 cubic metres of sediment. RFT # 10005203 Coatsworth Cut Project – Channel Dredging Works BIDDERS MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION DREDGING ($/m³) DISPOSAL To TTP ($/m³) TOTAL (plus HST) Galcon Marine Ltd. $76,362.00 $28.68 $28.41 $201,960.00 Ontario Construction Company $99,060.00 $34.03 $23.85 $226,396.00 Restoration and Infrastructure staff reviewed the bid received from Galcon Marine Ltd. against previous dredging contracts for Coatsworth Cut and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of Galcon Marine Ltd.’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that Galcon Marine Ltd. is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the bids received, staff recommend that Galcon Marine Ltd. be awarded Contract #10005203 for dredging works for a total amount not to exceed $201,960.00, to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 15% contingency, plus HST; it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications. As it is standard practice to include a contingency in project estimation in the event of unforeseen events, an additional allowance of $30,294.00 is recommended. However, as the City has directed TRCA to remove as much material as possible with the available budget, it is recommended that staff monitor project expenditures during the course of the work, and be allowed to utilize the contingency to remove additional material if funds are available. 388 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project, including Contract #10005203, staff time and all associated costs to manage this contract is available under TRCA’s City of Toronto Waterfront Capital 2017 budget, within account 211-16. Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-844-3987 Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Matt Johnston, 647-808-6743 Emails: mjohnston@trca.on.ca Date: July 7, 2017 ______________________________ 389 RES.#A143/17 - BLUFFERS PARK CHANNEL DREDGING Award of Contract #10005202 for Maintenance Dredging of the Bluffers Park Entrance Channel, City of Toronto. Award of Contract #10005202 to complete maintenance dredging of the navigation channel at Bluffers Park. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Contract #10005202 be awarded to Galcon Marine Ltd. for the maintenance dredging of the navigation channel at Bluffers Park in the City of Toronto at a total cost not to exceed $188,284.00 plus HST, it being the highest ranked bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of $25,000.00 as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractors, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractor that submitted a tender; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1981 Bluffer’s Park opened at the foot of Brimley Road as a waterfront park in the City of Toronto. Included within the Park is a commercial marina as well as four boating clubs which access Lake Ontario by way of the entrance channel. Due to coastal and sediment transport processes, the navigation channel is susceptible to deposition of sand and other material. This deposition reduces the depth of water in the navigation channel and can severely impact the ability to safely navigate boats through the area and limits marine-based emergency access if left unaddressed. The channel is owned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, however the City of Toronto is responsible for maintaining safe navigation depths, and TRCA assists the City as requested to maintain these depths given staff’s expertise with dredging and marine contract management. Sedimentation rates are expected to decline substantially in the channel over the long-term following the armouring of the Meadowcliffe sector of the Scarborough Bluffs shoreline in 2011, which was identified as the primary source of material depositing in the channel; however periodic maintenance dredging can continue to be expected, albeit at a much reduced cost and frequency. There is a proposed future expansion and reconfiguration of the headland to the east of the entrance channel as part of the Scarborough Waterfront Project that is expected to reduce sedimentation rates in the channel, however routine maintenance dredging will be required until this feature is fully constructed, the date for which has not yet been confirmed. In early 2008, concerns of insufficient water depths in the entrance channel were brought to TRCA’s attention by members of the boating clubs. TRCA notified the City of Toronto (Parks, Forestry & Recreation) of the hazard, who in turn retained TRCA to undertake maintenance dredging later that summer. Upon completion of the 2008 dredging project, approximately 1,700 cubic metres of sediment was removed from the entrance channel; a relatively minor amount compared to the more than 70,000 cubic metres of sediment which is estimated to have 390 accumulated over the more than 30 years since the entrance channel was constructed. Recognizing that the maintenance work restored only the minimum depth required for safe passage through the channel, with no allowance provided for ongoing siltation, it was communicated by TRCA staff to the City of Toronto that future maintenance dredging would likely be required. In 2010, insufficient water depths in the entrance channel were again brought to TRCA’s attention. In response, TRCA completed a hydrographic survey of the entrance channel in April 2010 to provide updated information to the City of Toronto and determine the appropriate course of action. The survey showed that a large sand bar formed laterally across the entrance channel, reducing water depths to approximately 1.5 m and creating a risk to the members of the boating community who require a minimum draft of 1.8 m below chart datum for safe passage. As a result of shallow water in the entrance channel, a member of the Cathedral Bluffs Yacht Club got stranded on the sand bar on the evening of April 26, 2010, requiring rescue. Although no injuries were reported, it is noted that the draft on the stranded boat was 1.4 m. Emergency dredging was completed within the entrance channel in June 2010, allowing for approximately 3,500 cubic metres of sediment to be removed. Unfortunately, a sounding completed by TRCA on May 9, 2011 revealed that more than 2/3 of the volume removed 11 months earlier had re-accumulated. In 2014, TRCA removed approximately 9,000 cubic metres of material from the channel based on hydrographic surveys and the City’s available budget for 2014. On May 19, 2016 two near-misses were reported to TRCA from a concerned boater after a vessel ran aground in an unmarked area of the channel. TRCA relayed this information to the City, who in turn requested TRCA’s assistance with emergency maintenance dredging. TRCA removed 3,000 cubic metres of sediment to restore safe access within the channel. In April 2017 TRCA completed a hydrographic survey and determined that it was necessary to remove at least 700 cubic metres of sediment to meet minimum navigation requirements. It was determined that the City’s available budget would allow for the removal of approximately 2,000-2,500 cubic metres of sediment and TRCA was retained by the City to remove as much as possible. For several years TRCA has recommended to the City that they consider completing a major sediment removal exercise to restore the channel to as close to its original design condition as possible given that the cost to mobilize annually is significant and the timeframe for the long-term solution through the Scarborough Waterfront Project to be constructed and effective is currently unknown; however, the City has been unable to fund a more significant dredging project due to budget constraints. Sediment samples were collected from the channel and sent for laboratory analysis to determine disposal options for the dredgeate. Based on the results of these analyses, the sediment meets Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s Table 1 background data meaning that the material meets unconfined disposal guidelines. Given that on-site disposal is the most cost-effective solution and site disturbance is expected to be minimal, permanent disposal of the dredgeate is to be placed along the east beach above the high water mark. RATIONALE Request for Proposals (RFP) #10005202 was publically advertised on www.biddingo.com on June 7, 2017, and a mandatory site meeting was held on June 15, 2017. The following contractors attended this meeting: 391 Galcon Marine Ltd.; Ontario Construction; Town of Coburg; Euro Landscaping; McKeil Marine; Eco Technologies; and Facca Inc. Bids were opened at the Procurement Opening Committee meeting held on June 26, 2017 by TRCA staff (James Dickie, Judith Reda and Jessica Pietrangelo). Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff reviewed the proposal submissions and were evaluated on a weighted scoring system consisting of 50% reasonableness of cost, 30% corporate experience and resources and the remaining 20% on the reference check. Along with unit rates for the channel maintenance dredging, bidders were to include company resources, relevant experience, references, and health and safety certificates to ensure TRCA is receiving good value for services. From the evaluation, the highest ranked Bidder will be selected to complete the works. The table below summarizes the results of RFP #10005202 assuming removal of 2,000 cubic metres of sediment. RFP # 10005202 Bluffer’s Park Project – Channel Dredging Works BIDDERS MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION DREDGING ($/m³) DISPOSAL (Bluffers East Area ($/m³) TOTAL (plus HST) Overall Ranking Galcon Marine Ltd. $80,500.00 $28.40 $22.75 $188,284.00 1 Ontario Construction $112,530.00 $37.05 $11.30 $215,506.90 2 The main tender item that varied substantially between contractors was the proposed mobilization and demobilization costs. The large range in pricing is based on the location of the contractor’s equipment relative to the work area and cost associated with transporting their machinery to the site. Galcon Marine intends to mobilize by water from Keating Channel and has priced their mobilization accordingly. Ontario Construction has to mobilize their equipment by land from Niagara-on-the-Lake and then has to crane their equipment into the water which is more expensive. The deviation on dredging and disposal costs per cubic metre is within the range that Restoration and Infrastructure staff anticipated for this contract. Based on the evaluation of the received proposals, it was determined that Galcon Marine Ltd. was the highest ranking bidder and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the Contract #10005202 to Galcon Marine Ltd., it being the highest ranked bidder that best meet TRCA’s requirements as outlined in the RFP contract documents. Galcon Marine Ltd.’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was confirmed through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback. 392 As it is standard practice to include a contingency in project estimation in the event of unforeseen events, $25,000.00 has been set aside for this contract. However, as the City has directed TRCA to remove as much material as possible with the available budget, it is recommended that staff be allowed to utilize the contingency to remove additional material, if required. Staff will monitor the progress of the contractor and the budget before extending the scope of work. Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in early September 2017, pending authorization to award Contract #10005202 and the receipt of all necessary approvals. Work is anticipated to take approximately four weeks to complete, weather permitting. This project is aligned with leadership strategy number two “Manage our regional water resources for current and future generations.” Dredging of the channel will improve shoreline access making the system more navigable for canoes and other boats. In addition, this project aligns with enabling strategy number seven “build partnerships and new business model”. TRCA has now completed this work on behalf of the City multiple times allowing us to demonstrate TRCA’s expertise and capability in performing this critical maintenance thereby increasing TRCA’s financial resilience. FINANCIAL DETAILS A budget of $270,000 has been identified to complete the 2017 maintenance dredging works, including Contract #10005202, the recommended $25,000 contingency allowance, and staff time to secure approvals and manage the contract. Funding for this project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within account 186-10. Report prepared by: James Dickie, Phone: 416-844-3987 Emails: jdickie@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Matt Johnston, Phone: 647-808-6743 Emails: mjohnston@trca.on.ca Date: July 7, 2017 __________________________________ 393 RES.#A144/17 - CHORLEY PARK SWITCHBACK TRAIL PROJECT Contract #10005339 - Construction of Trail. Award of Contract #10005339 for the construction of a trail that will connect Chorley Park to the Beltline Trail, located in the Rosedale neighbourhood, in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Contract #10005339 be awarded to CSL Group Ltd. for construction services of a trail that will connect the Chorley Park Switchback Trail to the Beltline Trail, in the City of Toronto, at a total cost not to exceed $1,545,328.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Chorley Park Switchback Trail Project will connect Chorley Park to the Beltline Trail and will provide an accessible trail to the Don Valley Brick Works Park and the Lower Don Trail system, from the west side of the valley. Chorley Park is located at 245 Douglas Drive in the City of Toronto, within the Rosedale district. The park and the surrounding natural areas are owned and managed by the City of Toronto. Chorley Park is used primarily by local residents for leisure and recreational activities. The existing footpaths, asphalt trail and timber staircase, at Chorley Park, are no longer safe for public use. Many of the existing footpaths are also redundant. The City wishes to consolidate the multiple paths on the slope to reduce the impact on the natural environment. The area lacks a safe, accessible trail system, as the park is a significant connection point to the Lower Don Trail System. In addition, the sensitive ravine ecology is also being impacted by the proliferation of informal trails and the ever growing park system users. The City identified the need for a more formalized trail that is easily accessible for all users, improves public safety and protects the ecology of the adjacent ravine. Therefor Parks, Forestry and Recreation initiated a trail improvement project in Chorley Park in 2011. In 2012, City of Toronto’s Urban Forestry – Natural Environment and Community Programs section requested TRCA Restoration and Infrastructure staff to assist them to undertake the planning, design and construction of the Chorley Park Switchback Trail Project. Since that time, TRCA, in partnership with the City, has undertaken a conceptual design process and extensive public consultation, which has resulted in many modifications from the original design. The final design will create a trail which will balance the needs of all users. More recently, TRCA has partnered with the City to undertake an extensive geotechnical and engineering review, as well as ecological and forestry assessments of the site, and the design. In 2016, TRCA retained R.V. Anderson Associates Limited to complete the detailed design and engineering, as well as provide additional construction review services. 394 The final design work for the new trail connection has now been completed and The City has requested the support of TRCA to oversee construction which is scheduled to begin late summer 2017. At this time, staff requires construction services of a qualified contractor to carry out the construction of the Chorley Park Switchback Trail Project. RATIONALE TRCA and the City of Toronto have worked cooperatively on trail infrastructure and trail improvement projects for many years. Many existing trails and trail infrastructure projects on City-owned and managed lands were constructed by TRCA, and there is value to the City in having TRCA provide services that reduce environmental impacts and health and safety concerns in a prompt, cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner. TRCA is able to provide effective management of natural environment projects using their highly specialized expertise and ability to expedite approvals, facilitate community involvement and satisfy sensitive environmental standards. Tender #10005339 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website www.biddingo.com on Thursday, June 29, 2017, with a mandatory site information meeting held on July 16, 2017. Tender packages were provided to seven contractors as follows: CSL Group Ltd.; Dynex Construction Inc.; Landtar Construction Inc.; Loc Pave Construction; Eurolandscaping; North Gate Farms Ltd.; and Hawkins Contracting. Six contractors declined the opportunity to submit a bid, being unable to meet the timelines and specifications stated in the contract documents. Some bidders indicated that they are already sufficiently busy and were not willing to take on a project of this scale. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders on Monday, July 17, 2017, with the following results: BIDDERS Total Cost (Plus HST) CSL Group Ltd. $1,545,328.00 Each bidder was requested to provide a detailed proposal with their bid submission based on detailed designs and specifications provided within the Tender package. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (James Dickie, Michael Tolensky and Ralph Toninger) reviewed the bidders’ detailed proposals and evaluated them using the following criteria: Request for Proposal conformance and proposal completeness; Demonstrated understanding of the proposed works; Demonstrated experience in comparable projects; Expertise and qualifications of key personnel; Reasonability of costs. 395 Restoration and Infrastructure staff reviewed the bid received from CSL Group Ltd. against its own cost estimate and the estimated costing provided by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited. It was determined that the bid is of reasonable value and within 10% of their estimate, and the bid also meets the criteria as outlined in the evaluation process. Further assessment by TRCA staff of CSL Group Ltd.’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback of CSL Group Ltd. Both TRCA and the City of Toronto have had excellent experiences with CSL Group Ltd., and are both confident that they are capable of undertaking the scope of work. TRCA staff recommends that Contract #10005339 be awarded to CSL Group Ltd. for a total cost not to exceed $1,545,328.00, plus a 20% contract contingency, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder meeting TRCA’s specifications. This project is aligned with leadership strategy number seven “build partnerships and new business models”. TRCA has completed this work on behalf of the City multiple times allowing us to demonstrate TRCA’s expertise and capability in performing this critical maintenance thereby increasing TRCA’s financial resilience. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is provided by the City of Toronto on a cost recovery basis under account code 117-16. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will initiate the contract and provide overall project management services. The project includes the key following steps: Construction layout, site preparation, and erosion and sediment control (ESC); Earthmoving and trail construction; Staircase structure and retaining wall construction; Fine grading and restoration of all disturbed areas and slopes; Parkland path construction. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, TRCA will seek all necessary permits and approvals in partnership with the City of Toronto. Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger extension 5366 and Martina Saverino extension 6400 Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.ca, and msaverino@trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Hatton ext. 5365 Emails: dhatton@trca.on.ca Date: July 28, 2017 ______________________________ 396 RES.#A145/17- CLAREMONT PHASE II RENOVATION PROJECT Contract #10005103 Claremont Field Centre Project – Construction of a Wood Deck and Pathway. Award of Contract #10005103 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for the construction of a wood deck and pathway construction at Claremont Field Centre, in the City of Pickering. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Contract #10005103 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for wood deck and pathway construction at Claremont Field Centre (now Claremont Nature Centre), in the City of Pickering be awarded to Compex Construction at a total cost not to exceed $157,024.00 plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA staff be directed to take any action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Claremont Nature Centre (Claremont NC) is a 1,036 square metre panabode cedar log building that opened in 1970 for overnight outdoor education programs. At Authority Meeting #10/15, held on November 27, 2015, Resolution #A227/15 was approved, in part, as follows: …THAT TRCA education centres be redeveloped into community engagement centres with an emphasis on local participation in program development and delivery;… Further, at Authority Meeting #5/17, held on June 23, 2017, Resolution #A106/17 was approved, in part, as follows, after the release of Tender #10005225 using the Claremont Field Centre Project name: THAT the Claremont Field Centre, a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned and operated education facility located in the City of Pickering, be officially renamed the “Claremont Nature Centre”;... As part of Claremont NC’s transition into a community engagement hub, TRCA has identified the need for renovation of the interior facilities and reprogramming of space to support the delivery of new services to meet the changing needs and expectations of the community users. 397 The proposed exterior renovation project will include the refurbishment of the existing rear deck, an outdoor classroom and accessible pathway connecting the front parking to the valley trails and a ramp onto the new deck. Once completed, the pathway, deck and outdoor classroom spaces will allow TRCA to provide improved opportunities for community groups to better utilize this multiple use space. It is anticipated that the range of new programs and uses will include private functions, meetings and events, including exercise, meditation, music and art programs, amongst others. RATIONALE Tender #10005103 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on June 16, 2017 with a site information meeting held on June 21, 2017. Tender packages were received by the following five contractors: Compex Construction; Euro Construction; CSL Group Ltd.; Ultimate Construction Inc.; and Landtar Construction. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders on July 6, 2017 with the following results: BIDDERS TOTAL TENDER AMOUNT (Plus HST) Compex Construction $157,024.00 Landtar Construction $252,775.00 Ultimate Construction $258,860.39 CSL Group Ltd. $367,917.00 The bid selection process included conducting reference checks to review the contractor’s ability to undertake similar projects and an assessment of previous performance in a number of areas including, but not limited to, similar work experience, quality of work, and health and safety. TRCA staff reviewed the bid received from Compex Construction and determined that the bid meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Compex Construction be awarded Contract #10005103 for supply of all labour, materials and equipment necessary for wood deck and pathway construction at Claremont Field Centre, in the City of Pickering for a total amount not to exceed $157,024.00, to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 20% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is provided by Canada 150 and Durham Region, account 435-05. Report prepared by: Michelle Guy, ext. 5905 Emails: mguy@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Joanne Jeffery or Natalie Harder @ 661-6600 Emails: jjeffery@trca.on.ca or nharder@trca.on.ca Date: July 18, 2017 398 RES.#A146/17 - VERIFYGLOBAL ALLIANCE Proposed Membership. Approval for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to become a member of VerifyGlobal Alliance. Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been a member of the Globe Performance Solutions consortium of Canadian-based Environmental Technology Verification testing and verification organizations for the past five years; AND WHEREAS Globe Performance Solutions is no longer the sole delivery agent for the Environmental Technology Verification process in Canada; AND WHEREAS the Environmental Technology Verification process now requires that all future technology testing and verifications be conducted under the new International Standards Organization (ISO) 14034 standard; AND WHEREAS the VerifyGlobal Alliance has been established to provide a consolidated platform for testing and verification organizations worldwide; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority participate as a member of the VerifyGlobal Alliance for a period of five years ending July 2022; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority on the outcome of participation in the Alliance. CARRIED BACKGROUND In July, 2012, TRCA became a member of the Globe Performance Solutions (GPS) consortium of Canadian-based testing and verification organizations to help advance the use of sustainable technologies and enhance TRCA’s role as a third party verification and testing agent. At the time GPS was the sole delivery agent for Environment Canada’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. TRCA’s first project under the program involved the development of a scientifically defensible laboratory testing procedure for oil grit separators, in association with a 21 member national advisory committee. Since completion of the procedure in September 2013, several vendors have used the procedure to conduct testing under the ETV program. TRCA’s Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program has provided verification services for six of these technologies, two of which are currently underway. TRCA membership in the GPS consortium over the past five years has been successful in helping to ensure that oil grit separator vendor performance claims accurately reflect the true performance of the technologies, and as such, has supported decisions made by regulatory agencies and permitting authorities relating to the application of these devices to meet their requirements and performance criteria. As of January 2016, the Province of Quebec only issues permits for OGS vendors that have completed testing and verification to the TRCA developed ETV test procedure for oil grit separators. Several other large Canadian municipalities (e.g. City of Toronto, City of Calgary and City of Markham) have signaled their intent to institute similar requirements in their jurisdictions. 399 Over the past two years, Environment Canada has begun to wind down the Canadian ETV Program, in part due to the expected introduction of a new international standard for ETV, ISO 14034. The new ISO 14034 ETV standard, which was published in November 2016, changes the way that ETV services are offered and delivered in that the revised ETV standard facilitates a distributed approach whereby specific stakeholder groups and communities of interest can collaborate in defining appropriate performance parameters and verification requirements in a manner that more closely reflects their particular needs. Essentially, “top-down” government-owned program approaches (i.e., the former US EPA ETV Program and the Canadian ETV Program) have been replaced by a “bottom-up” open market approach that encourages the involvement of stakeholders in specific sectors and the sharing of verification results across multiple jurisdictions, with the greater possibility of international acceptance. It is expected that this new approach will open up international market opportunities for companies with technologies that have been independently verified following the new ISO 14034 standard. It will also make it easier for technology users, buyers and regulators to work together in defining specific market objectives and performance requirements to meet long-term sustainability goals. In March 2016, in anticipation of this new international approach to ETV, a new organization, VerifiGlobal, was created with the objective of providing a consolidated platform for performance testing and verification organizations worldwide. The secretariat for this not-for-profit organization is based in Copenhagen Denmark. Organizations working with VerifiGlobal participate as members of the VerifiGlobal Alliance. Current VerifiGlobal Alliance members include Battelle, the Centre for Alternative Wastewater Treatment (based out of Peterborough), ETA-Danmark (Technology evaluation group in Denmark), Good Harbour Labs (Toronto), RESCOLL (Technology services company in France) and VTT (Technical Research Centre in Finland). RATIONALE It is proposed that TRCA join the VerifiGlobal Alliance. This will generate greater profile for TRCA’s Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program, both locally and internationally, aligning well with the organization’s objectives to promote the development and deployment of innovative environmentally sound technologies. The Alliance also eliminates the need for TRCA to become ISO certified, which is a long and costly process, as the ISO certification is carried by VerifyGlobal on behalf of the consortium members. The benefits of joining VerifiGlobal Alliance is based on EFFECTIVE™ delivery of performance testing and verification services, including the following: Enhanced capacity to serve a broad range of clients across different sectors through targeted lead generation and co-marketing with governments and the private sector. Functional marketing and information platform for the provision of services such as performance benchmarking, protocol development, monitoring plan development, and capacity building. Forward-looking approach to help clients access strategic alliances, technology investment and project financing, thereby accelerating market adoption. Efficient streamlined process and quality assurance with working arrangements that maximize efficient use of resources. Co-ordinated communication and branding of the high quality services provided by VerifiGlobal Alliance members through a distinctive logo and verification statement. Transparency, effective advocacy and collective action based on performance benchmarking and stakeholder engagement to identify relevant performance parameters. 400 Integrated technical capabilities of performance testing and verification organizations with diverse areas of expertise, and enhanced capacity to conduct performance testing and verification at a global scale. Versatile in the provision of other performance evaluation and quality assurance services, including training of testing and verification bodies, and follow-up performance monitoring. Enabling mechanism for reciprocity and acceptance of test methods and performance data across multiple jurisdictions. FINANCIAL DETAILS There is an annual fee of $2,000 to join the alliance. TRCA will receive $10,000, plus applicable taxes, for verifications of each proprietary technology conducted under the new ISO standard. The annual fee will be paid from funds collected for undertaking verifications (account code 416-96). The fee will not be paid until the first verification agreement is in place. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE To join the VerifyGlobal alliance, TRCA would sign a Memorandum of Understanding with VerifyGlobal outlining the terms and conditions of the membership. Requests for verifications would be subsequently channeled through VerifyGlobal, who would act as the administrative point of contact with the applicant. Report prepared by: Tim Van Seters, extension 5792 Emails: tvanseters@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Tim Van Seters, extension 5792 Emails: tvanseters@trca.on.ca Date: July 4, 2017 ______________________________ 401 RES.#A147/17 - CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Draft Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments. TRCA’s draft submission to the MNRF through EBR#013-0561 on the amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, as part of Bill 139, the proposed Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Linda Pabst WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have completed their review of the Province of Ontario’s proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) and the accompanying “Conserving our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act” outlining the suite of legislative, regulatory, policy and program actions that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) intends to take to modernize the CA Act; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff have drafted a letter detailing TRCA’s comments on the proposed amendments and Conserving Our Future to be submitted by the EBR deadline of July 31, 2017 (Attachment 1); THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff report on TRCA’s draft comments to the Province through EBR posting #013-0561 be endorsed; THAT staff continue to work with MNRF, Conservation Ontario and TRCA’s municipal partners in the actions proposed by MNRF to modernize the CA Act, and keep the Authority so advised; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA’s municipal partners, neighbouring conservation authorities (CAs), Conservation Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/17 held on June 23, 2017, staff presented to the Authority a summary of the amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act as proposed under Bill 139 and as described in Conserving Our Future. At that meeting, Resolution #A113/17 was approved as follows: THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff report on the provincial government’s proposed amendments to the CA Act under Bill 139 be received and inform TRCA’s final EBR submission; THAT staff continue to work with MNRF, Conservation Ontario and TRCA’s municipal partners in the actions proposed by MNRF to modernize the CA Act; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA’s municipal partners, neighbouring conservation authorities and Conservation Ontario be so advised. 402 Staff have completed a review of the proposed amendments and the accompanying “Conserving Our Future” document and drafted a letter of comments to be submitted to the Province through the EBR (Attachment 1). Overall, the proposed amendments to the CA Act, including the addition of a new purpose statement, and the suite of proposed actions outlined in Conserving Our Future, are generally positive and maintain the broad mandate and diverse roles of CAs to support the Province and municipalities in achieving their mandates. Furthermore, many of the standards, requirements and administrative aspects of CAs that are proposed as required to be part of a by-law and provincial regulations are already existing in TRCA’s current practice, e.g., TRCA Rules of Conduct, various memoranda of understanding (MOU) and service delivery agreements, etc. Many of the proposed amendments to the CA Act are enabling only, so that if passed, they would not come into force until a later date through regulations. The content and timing of these regulations are unknown at this time but as we understand it, will be subject to further consultation and review through the EBR. Conserving Our Future identifies a four-year time horizon to phase-in a suite of changes and actions to allow MNRF, CAs, municipalities, Indigenous communities and other interested parties to participate in their development Draft TRCA Comments and Recommendations Below is a listing from Attachment 1 of TRCA’s recommendations for the Ministry’s consideration on the proposed amendments to the CA Act and the actions identified in Conserving our Future. TRCA recommends that: 1) The words, “the extraction of” be inserted into the proposed amended Section 20 (1) as follows: The objects of an authority are to provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than the extraction of gas, oil, coal and minerals. 2) A clause be added to the Act with respect to flood and erosion control liability to protect conservation authorities operating in good faith from prosecution. 3) Conservation authorities be engaged in the updates for apportionment and for the charging of fees to more fully understand the implications of the proposed changes, in particular as to how the Province and municipalities are able to fund CAs given the categories of programs and services being introduced under the new section 21.1 (1), i.e., mandatory, under MOU, and others. 4) Section 30 be amended to include an order to comply; that a stop work order be appealed directly to the Minister; that clarification be provided regarding “after the fact” permits; and further that any new or updated regulations include a definition of an officer. TRCA further recommends that Section 30 be enacted at the time of passing Bill 139. 5) The Service Delivery Review Committee be tasked with examining the service delivery standards of all parties/stakeholders, not just those of conservation authorities. 403 6) MNRF provide conservation authorities and municipalities with greater detail on their four-year work plan, including the priorities and timing of implementing regulations and phasing. 7) MNRF continue to work with TRCA, municipalities and Conservation Ontario in implementing the actions proposed by MNRF to modernize the CA Act. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff reviewed the proposed amendments and the supporting Conserving Our Future document as part of existing budgets. No additional funding is required for this review. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon endorsement of the Authority, staff will submit TRCA’s comments to the EBR by the deadline of July 31, 2017. Staff will continue to work with MNRF, municipalities and Conservation Ontario in understanding the proposed amendments, the development of regulations, and will participate in provincial working groups as required. As well, staff will continue to keep the Authority informed on these matters. Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281, Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: lnelson@trca.on.ca, mburns@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Brian Denney, extension 6290 Emails: bdenney@trca.on.ca Date: July 28, 2017 Attachments: 1 404 Attachment 1 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE Mr. Finn MacDonald Policy Officer Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Policy Division Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch 300 Water Street Peterborough Ontario K9J 8M5 Re: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments in response to the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, a component of Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act (EBR # 013-0561), and the Conservation Authorities Act Review Decision Document Conserving Our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act Dear Mr. MacDonald: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) component of Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act (EBR # 013-0561). Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) would like to acknowledge the efforts of staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) in undertaking a comprehensive review and stakeholder engagement process over the past two years with a goal of modernizing the CA Act. The proposed amendments to the CA Act, together with the suite of actions to be taken by MNRF, as further explained in “Conserving Our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act”, are intended to strengthen the ability of the Province, municipalities and others to continue to work with conservation authorities (CAs) to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in Ontario. A modernized framework will enable CAs to continue to evolve in the areas of natural resource management and environmental protection and be responsive to challenges such as climate change. TRCA staff have participated in the engagement sessions and provided detailed comments, endorsed by the Authority, on the two previous EBR postings to inform the CA Act review process. The scope of amendments to the CA Act and the associated suite of proposed policy, regulatory and program changes outlined in the Conserving our Future document are needed in order to support the leading-edge, on-the-ground work of CAs in keeping Ontario communities, natural systems and infrastructure safe, green, vibrant, and resilient. DR A F T 405 2 Fortunately, the CA Act review has been undertaken in a similar timeframe as other major provincial legislation and plans concerning the Greenbelt, Niagara Escarpment, Oak Ridges Moraine and Places to Grow, as well as other provincial initiatives such as the Wetland Conservation Strategy and Watershed Planning Technical Guidance. Overall, the proposed amendments to the CA Act, including the addition of a new purpose statement, and the suite of proposed actions outlined in Conserving Our Future, are generally positive and maintain the broad mandate and diverse roles of CAs to support the Province and municipalities in achieving their mandates. Furthermore, many of the standards, requirements and administrative aspects of CAs that are proposed as required to be part of a by-law and provincial regulations are already existing in TRCA’s current practice, e.g., TRCA Rules of Conduct, various memoranda of understanding and service delivery agreements, etc. That said, much of the outcome of the CA Act review has been deferred to the content of regulations either under the Minister’s approval or through Provincial Cabinet. The details of such regulations and their implications for CAs are unknown at this time. Bill 139 must pass through two more readings in the legislature before it can be enacted, which is anticipated to occur later this fall. Many of the proposed amendments to the CA Act are enabling only, so that if passed, they would not come into force until a later date through regulations. The content and timing of these regulations are unknown at this time but as we understand it, will be subject to further consultation and review through the EBR. Conserving Our Future identifies a 4-year time horizon to phase-in a suite of changes and actions to allow the Ministry, CAs, municipalities, Indigenous communities and other interested parties to participate in their development. For the Ministry’s consideration, TRCA offers the following detailed comments on the proposed amendments to the CA Act and the actions identified in Conserving our Future. Climate Change “The science-based, watershed management programs and services that conservation authorities provide will be increasingly required in the face of climate change and the resulting vulnerabilities to biodiversity and natural resources in the province. These programs and services include those mandated by the Province, assigned by municipalities and developed by conservation authorities in response to local needs and priorities.” (Conserving Our Future, page 13) This statement responds to the feedback received in the Province’s consultation process which demonstrated a lack of understanding of the role of CAs in managing natural resources or the accountabilities for the work they undertake. It reflects upon the proposed changes to the CA Act, specifically a new section 21.1 (1) which sets out three categories of programs and services that a CA is required or permitted to provide within its area of jurisdiction. TRCA understands that the new provisions of section 40 of the Act would enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGIC) to make regulations outlining the provincially mandated programs and services CAs are required to provide in 21.1 (1) in accordance with any applicable standards or requirements outlined in the regulation. Furthermore, as per section 40 (2), such regulations may include standards and requirements to mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through increasing resiliency. Conserving our Future indicates that MNRF intends to work with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) to create a new regulation in this regard for conservation authorities’ programs and services. MNRF also intends to create a new regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of CAs in reviewing planning documents for consistency with the Provincial DR A F T 406 3 Policy Statement including policies related to natural hazard policies and land use and development patterns that promote climate change adaptation and mitigation. TRCA supports the inclusion of climate change as part of the regulated mandatory programs and services, given that is a critical natural resource management issue, for which CAs have the expertise to respond. Through the Ontario Climate Change Consortium, TRCA continues to advance our expertise in climate change science, impact assessment, and adaptation and mitigation in order to support TRCA policies, programs and projects and those to which TRCA contributes. In the Toronto region, TRCA has played a critical role in addressing climate change risks and the impacts of rapid growth and urbanization within its area of jurisdiction, which supports the Province’s and municipalities’ efforts to address pressing environmental issues such as Lake Ontario water quality, flood and erosion hazard management, stormwater management, natural heritage systems planning and source water protection. Industrial commercial lands are a major land use in the most urbanized conservation authority watersheds. As local delivery agents, CAs have been actively engaging both business industrial communities’ and residents’ initiatives that involve hands-on experiences to achieve watershed sustainability and climate change objectives. A key focus of TRCA’s climate change work has been in supporting industry transition to more energy efficient technologies and conservation, creating resilient communities, and facilitating sustainable land use planning. TRCA advocates for the use of these technologies where feasible in its involvement in the planning process, however, a lack of information and experience can often be a barrier to adoption. Specialized, stakeholder mobilization initiatives around climate mitigation and adaptation such as our Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Program (SNAP) and Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco-Business Zone, Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP), demonstration LEED® Platinum-certified Archetype houses as part of the Living City Campus have been playing a significant role in achieving provincial climate change objectives in our urbanized watersheds. Conservation authorities own significant amounts of land within the Province supporting forest and agriculture related carbon sinks. The role of CAs as potential stewards of this source of carbon sequestration should be recognized and supported. To achieve the provincial climate change mandate, both mitigation and adaptation measures must be equally championed and realized by all sectors of government, industry and society at-large to address the complexity and uncertainty of climate change. The current exclusion of energy from natural resource management in the section 20 “objects” of a CA may limit CA ability to address the most challenging issues in our urbanized watersheds. In order to capture these and other energy- related programs and services under the umbrella of climate change work in which CAs may engage, the current exclusion of energy from natural resource management in the section 20 “objects” of a CA should be amended. This would provide clarity and avoid possible restrictions on the role of CAs in climate change mitigation concerning energy conservation, emission reductions, etc. Therefore, TRCA recommends that to close the potential gap in mandate around energy conservation and emissions reductions around various voluntary programs, the words, “the extraction of” be inserted into the proposed amended Section 20 (1) as follows: DR A F T 407 4 The objects of an authority are to provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than the extraction of gas, oil, coal and minerals. Immunity Provision An amendment that was not proposed but that TRCA would like to see is with respect to risk management and that would support the Province’s objective to enhance oversight and accountability. Given the liability associated with the operation of flood and erosion control infrastructure for which CAs are responsible, particularly in the face of increased exposures associated with climate change, some form of statutory immunity for the good will operation of this essential infrastructure is warranted. The following is suggested wording based on section 95 of the Water Security Agency Act, SS 2005, c W-8.1 (enabling legislation for a similar agency, but in the Province of Saskatchewan): "No action or proceeding lies or shall be commenced against the Crown, the minister, the authority, any member of the authority, any officer or employee of the authority or any person authorized by the authority, if that person is acting pursuant to or under this Act or the regulations, for anything in good faith done, attempted to be done or omitted to be done by that person or by any of those persons pursuant to or in the exercise or supposed exercise of any power conferred by this Act or the regulations or in the carrying out or supposed carrying out of any order made pursuant to this Act or any duty imposed by this Act or the regulations.” Therefore, TRCA recommends that a clause be added to the Act with respect to flood and erosion control liability to protect CAs operating in good faith from prosecution. Funding While no changes to current provincial funding are proposed, MNRF has indicated that outlining provincial expectations for the programs and services to be provided by CAs will provide the opportunity to review existing levels against these expectations and ensure that appropriate funding levels are in place to ensure sustainability of these programs and services (page 31 of Conserving Our Future). TRCA appreciates this admission given that one of our recommendations in a previous EBR submission was to establish a sustainable and equitable funding model that allows CAs to optimize existing municipal funding and that provides the resources required to sustain the broad suite of CA programs and services. We further understand that the proposed amendments to the Act will enable the Province to make regulations governing the kinds of costs to be apportioned among participating municipalities as “capital costs” and “operating expenses”. Similarly, the Province will also be enabled to make regulations governing how capital costs and operating expenses (e.g. associated with CA programs, services and operation) are apportioned by CAs (Conserving Our Future, page 29). However, TRCA notes that while “operating expenses” is a broadly defined term in the amended Act (including salaries, rent and other office costs, program expenses, maintenance and such other costs as may be prescribed by regulation), “capital costs” is not defined. This leaves it unclear as to what the term includes; a reasonable interpretation would be based on public sector accounting standards; a definition in the Act would eliminate any misinterpretation and support the Province’s objectives of clarity and accountability. We note that Conserving Our Future states that the Province will work with municipalities and CAs to update the way in which costs are apportioned to participating municipalities. DR A F T 408 5 As one of the largest landholders and property managers in the Greater Toronto Area, TRCA provides a substantial share of the open space systems needed to service redeveloping and intensifying communities but unlike municipalities do not have access to development charges to fund the expansion or strengthening of this infrastructure. Current funding mechanisms are not sufficient to support the public service demands resulting from the amount of growth that is occurring in TRCA’s watersheds. Funding is needed not only for operations but land securement and asset management, including long term land care. With respect to fees, the Province has indicated it will be updating the ministry’s Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees to provide CAs with additional guidance on the development of fee schedules. TRCA is well-positioned in this regard as it relates to its plan and permit review functions given its board-approved Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fees Policy and Guideline (2009) that is consistent with the intent of the proposed amendments. Yet what remains unclear at this time is the scope of programs and services that are to be included in the Minister’s regulation, how prescriptive the amounts to be charged will be, and the manner in which fees are to be calculated (current fees for TRCA services range widely from those for renting a campsite and booking banquet facilities, to environmental education workshop fees and admission fees to conservation areas). Therefore, TRCA recommends that CAs be engaged in the updates for apportionment and for the charging of fees to more fully understand the implications of the proposed changes, in particular as to how the Province and municipalities are able to fund CAs given the categories of programs and services being introduced under the new section 21.1 (1), i.e., mandatory, under MOU, and others. Enforcement and Compliance TRCA is pleased to see that substantial amendments are proposed in Bill 139 to enhance enforcement mechanisms, i.e., the ability to issue stop work orders, to enter privately-owned land to ensure compliance, and to charge significantly higher penalties than current for individuals and corporations, and allowing courts, upon conviction, to order the repair or rehabilitation of any damage resulting from the commission of an offence. The proposed amendments in section 30 update and modernize the suite of compliance tools that can be used by CAs to enforce compliance with regulatory requirements. With respect to stop work orders, TRCA recommends that an accompanying “order to comply” also be added to the Act to facilitate immediate, albeit interim, mitigation at the expense of the party engaged in the offending activity. Moreover, it is noted that individuals who receive a stop work order have the ability to appeal to the authority, and if not satisfied, to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. TRCA has no objection to an appeal to the Minister. However, it is suggested that an appeal to the authority may result in the “apprehension of bias” should the individual make application to apply for a permit for the offending works, which could not meet the tests of the Regulation and would be subject to a hearing before the Authority. This raises a further issue of “permits after the fact” that TRCA pointed out previously by recommending how authorities approach these scenarios be clarified in the Act, so as to avoid the potential for duplicative processes under the Act and through the courts. New regulation-making enabling powers by the LGIC are set out in section 28.5 (1) governing other activities that may impact the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources within the area of jurisdiction of an authority. This provision would enable the Province to regulate other activities within the area of the CA in the future, in order to be DR A F T 409 6 responsive to current and future natural resource management challenges. TRCA recommends that the definition of an officer be included in any new or updated regulation under section 28, as well as section 29 regulations governing lands and property owned by a conservation authority. TRCA understands that our existing section 28 permitting regulation will continue to remain in effect at the time of passing of Bill 139, but that the enforcement mechanisms in the proposed section 30 will be enacted at a date to be determined by the LGIC. The immediate need for these enhanced deterrents to non-compliance is acute in TRCA’s highly urbanized watersheds given current development pressures, increasing risks to health and safety and property damage from extreme weather events. Therefore, TRCA recommends that Section 30 be amended to include an order to comply; that a stop work order be appealed directly to the Minister; that clarification be provided regarding “after the fact” permits; and further that any new or updated regulations include a definition of an officer. TRCA further recommends that Section 30 be enacted at the time of passing Bill 139. Implementation MNRF has indicated the comprehensive suite of legislative, regulatory, policy and program changes outlined in Conserving our Future would be phased-in over the next four years to provide the ministry, conservation authorities, participating municipalities, Indigenous communities and other interested parties the opportunity to participate in their development. A phased approach is also being used in consideration of the time and resources that it may take to operationalize some of the proposed changes. One of the first actions to be taken by MNRF will be the establishment of two working groups: 1. A multi-ministry working group – will be tasked to develop the proposed regulatory changes and options for increasing Provincial funding levels; and 2. A multi-stakeholder Service Delivery Review Committee – will be tasked with supporting the Ministry in the development of proposed policies and procedures. TRCA is supportive of the establishment of a multi-ministry working group. As detailed in TRCA’s submission to Phase Two of the CA Act review, TRCA has developed a number of partnerships with various ministries, demonstrating the diversity of TRCA programs and the many ways in which TRCA helps to achieve provincial objectives. Key to strengthening partnerships and maximizing opportunities for the implementation of provincial and regional objectives, as well as meeting local needs, will be the inclusion of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in this working group. Conserving our Future indicates that the Service Delivery Review Committee would serve to replace the former Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee (CALC), previously established by the Ministry to support the development and implementation of MNRF’s “Policies and Procedures for Plan Review and Permitting Activities.” TRCA was a member of the CALC in which a cross-section of stakeholders assessed the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the planning and permit review and approval processes. The formation of a new working committee could benefit from a more holistic examination of all stakeholders’ collective ability to meet shared objectives in natural resource management. Examples include the service delivery standards of provincial ministries (e.g., Species at Risk), municipalities, and industry service delivery standards (e.g., stormwater management criteria and erosion and sediment control DR A F T 410 7 requirements). These are relevant discussions that CAs typically have with municipalities in the development of memoranda of understanding for the provision of CA programs and services. Therefore, TRCA recommends that the Service Delivery Review Committee be tasked with examining the service delivery standards of all parties/stakeholders, not just those of conservation authorities. Given the number and breadth of the regulations proposed to be developed, the four-year time horizon for implementation is ambitious. TRCA is supportive and wants to be engaged in this process to operationalize the proposed changes. In order to be responsive to the watershed needs of municipal partners in a rapidly growing and intensifying city-region, an approach that provides clarity and direction regarding priorities and timing of the regulations would be helpful in understanding the implications to TRCA programs and services. Therefore, TRCA recommends that MNRF provide CAs and municipalities with greater detail on their four-year work plan, including the priorities and timing of developing and implementing regulations; And further, that MNRF continue to work with TRCA, municipalities and Conservation Ontario in implementing the actions proposed by MNRF to modernize the CA Act. TRCA looks forward to continuing to be engaged in the Province’s third and final phase of the Conservation Authorities Act review and the regulation-making and implementation processes to follow. Should you have any questions or require clarification on any of the comments or recommendations submitted, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Brian Denney, P.Eng Chief Executive Officer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority DR A F T 411 RES.#A148/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Quadrant Holdings Inc., CFN 57972. Acquisition of property located north of Rutherford Road and west of Bathurst Street, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res.#B57/17) Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT 0.93 hectares (2.29 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Rutherford Road and west of Bathurst Street, said land being Part of Lots 17 and 18, Concession 2 designated as Part 19 on Plan 65M-4540 and Parts 19 and 20 on Plan 65M-4541, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Quadrant Holdings Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm, Gardiner Roberts LLP be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A149/17 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for Permanent Easements Required for the Coxwell Sanitary Trunk Sewer Bypass Tunnel City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 42948. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide permanent easements required for the Coxwell Sanitary Trunk Sewer Bypass Tunnel, within the Lower Don River valley, from north of O'Connor Drive to Ashbridge’s Bay, Don River watershed, City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area). (Executive Res.#B58/17) Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie 412 WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide permanent easements for the Coxwell Sanitary Trunk Sewer Bypass Tunnel, within the Lower Don River valley, from north of O'Connor Drive to Ashbridge’s Bay, City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area), Don River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent easements containing a total of 3.36 hectares (8.30 acres), more or less, be granted to the City of Toronto for the Coxwell Sanitary Trunk Sewer Bypass Tunnel, said land being designated as: i) Parcels 1, 2 and 3, as shown on separate plans prepared by the City of Toronto Engineering and Construction Services Department, Engineering Support Services, Land & Property Surveys, Job No. 2016-04111, Map Sheet 51G-23, dated August 22, 2016 and October 25, 2016, respectively; ii) Part 2 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by Tham Surveying Ltd., under their Job No. 16-096-RPLAN 2-GRID; Part 2 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by Tham Surveying Ltd., under their Job No. 16-096-RPLAN 3-GRID; Parts 1-24, inclusive, on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by Tham Surveying Ltd., under their Job No. 16-096-RPLAN 4- GRID; iii) Parcel 9, as shown on separate plans prepared by the City of Toronto Engineering and Construction Services Department, Engineering Support Services, Land & Property Surveys, Job No. 2016-04111, Map Sheets 52J-23 & 52K-13, dated November 16, 2016 and Map Sheets 52K-13 & 53K-12, dated November 17, 2016; iv) Parts 3 and 4 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by the City of Toronto Engineering and Construction Services Department, Engineering Support Services, Land & Property Surveys, Job No. 2016-04444, Plan No. 1, dated November 9, 2016; and v) Parts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by the City of Toronto Engineering and Constructed Services Department, Engineering Support Services, Land & Property Surveys, Job No. 2016-04117, Plan No. 1, dated February 28, 2017, City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area); THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00; all legal, survey and other costs are to be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the City of Toronto; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of the City of Toronto; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by the City of Toronto prior to commencement of construction; 413 THAT said easement be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A150/17 - CLAREMONT FIELD CENTRE PROJECT Contract #10005225 Claremont Field Centre Project - Interior Renovations and Fire Suppression Upgrade. Award of Contract #10005225 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for interior renovations and building fire separation improvements at Claremont Nature Centre, in the City of Pickering. (Executive Res.#B59/17) Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Contract #10005225 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for interior renovations and building fire separation improvements at Claremont Nature Centre, in the City of Pickering be awarded to MJ.K Construction Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $245,435.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 25% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA staff be directed to take any action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A151/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie 414 THAT Section II Items 12.1.1 – 12.1.3, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/17, held on July 14, 2017, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 12.1.1 – 12.1.3, Inclusive CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED OAK RIDGES MORAINE GROUNDWATER PROGRAM MONITORING WELL (Executive Res.#B60/17) IBM NOTES SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION (Executive Res.#B61/17) OFFICE AND PAPER SUPPLIES (Executive Res.#B62/17) ______________________________ 415 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A152/17 - GOOD NEWS STORIES Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities from April to June 2017. Moved by: Maria Kelleher Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT the summary of Good News Stories from April through June 2017 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As per Authority direction during 2006, a report covering highlights of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities is provided to the Authority. The stories from April through June 2017 are as follows: April TRCA completed construction of critical erosion control works to protect Region of York sanitary sewer infrastructure in the Town of Newmarket. TRCA staff worked in partnership with Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) to address two critical erosion hazards that were ranked as the highest priority sites under LSRCA's Infrastructure Hazard Monitoring Program with the Region. Construction involved the installation of three armourstone grade control weirs with roundstone bed and bank protection to stabilize the channel. In addition, the design addressed a perched culvert that acted as fish barrier. A river otter was spotted at Tommy Thompson Park (TTP); only the second sighting of one at TTP (previous one was in 2007). Bolton Camp selected as the primary beneficiary of the 2017 Caledon Council Community Golf Tournament. The fundraising goal of the event is to make a minimum contribution of $75,000 from tournament proceeds to go towards “The Hub,” a multi-purpose space that can accommodate a variety of community events, indoor sport and educational activities. The Small Arms Building was sold to the City of Mississauga in order to expedite the building restoration and the creation of a community space. The newly created space will host community events and promote activities such as farmers markets and local artist festivals. The Ontario Climate Consortium hosted the Climate Data Training Session for Engineers and Planners on April 26th to a full-capacity crowd of 110 participants. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) sponsored the event. Kortright Centre for Conservation (KCC) currently has over 450 campers registered summer camp. The KCC homeschool program continues to grow with the addition of two 4-week theme based half-day programs. KCC's Bees school program is fully booked this spring for morning programs. This important program teaches students about protecting our native bees. The KCC Spring Little Saplings program has 34 families registered, with some families already signing up for our fall sessions. KCC introduced an Ancient Technologies course which is fully booked up. TRCA hopes to offer an additional Ancient Technologies Course in the fall to accommodate the growing demand. 416 April saw the launch of a brand new adult course at the Kortright Organic farm on Organic Gardening with 14 students registered. The students learned about starting plants from seed, creating soil mixtures to give plants a head start and transplanting seedlings into the garden. Black Creek SNAP's (Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan) 2017 horticulture and fruit tree care skills training programs for San Romanoway tenants were launched, with 26 residents participating and actively engaged in the ongoing maintenance of San Romanoway landscaped areas. Five social enterprise "interns" are offering their fruit tree care services to neighbourhood homes. SNAP's previous skills training have resulted in several graduates obtaining jobs in the horticulture industry. Butterfly garden was implemented with a public planting in Driftwood Park as part of Black Creek SNAP. Bayview Glen SNAP's 2017 home retrofit program was launched, complemented with a solar homes and sustainable swimming pools workshop. For Earth Day 2017, Partners in Project Green (PPG) and the Toronto Zoo released a video profiling a Material Exchange between the Toronto Zoo and Cavaleiro Farm. Using Material Exchange, the Toronto Zoo created a new end-of-life management diversion solution to ensure their bamboo waste was not sent to landfill, resulting in the diversion of 120 tonnes of material since 2014. Using PPG’s Material Exchange, Grand and Toy donated 3,420 kg of office supplies to the Toronto District School Board's Arts Junktion for further distribution to Toronto District School Board schools. This donation was valued at $5,130. May Fabrication of new work boat has commenced. Completion and delivery expected in August. The 5th Ontario Climate Change Symposium was held on May 11 and 12 at York University. It was the largest to date and very well attended. The new Director of Strategic Policy Branch at MOECC for climate change adaptation, attended and opened the door for further engagement. In collaboration with Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), giving away 1,867 memberships as part of the Canada 150 celebrations. Driving range at Bruce’s Mill opened and is quite busy in its first season of operation. Partnership with the Meadowbrook Golf Course. BCPV and The Living City Foundation have launched a corporate membership program which has welcomed its first two members: Precise ParkLink has donated $25,000 toward the campaign, and Greenwin is sending every student from Shoreham Public School on a field trip to BCPV over the next year. Rebranded the BCPV beer which is now in cans, have permanent shelf listings of Canada 150 best bitter, and Rifleman Ration brown ale, and Pumpkin Ale will be a seasonal product. Onsite changes that growlers for sale in the gift shop, and tasting available every day from 12:30 - closing which resulted in double the bookings to date. Parks Canada national program of free parks passes for Canada 150 was launched at Bob Hunter Memorial Park with the federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. TRCA staff got the Park ready for the launch event very quickly. The provincial and federal governments approved matching funding for flood mapping and mitigation projects totalling $900,000 through the National Disaster Mitigation Program. Received $570,000 in matching funding from Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s (MNRF) Water and Erosion Control (WECI) program for erosion control and dam safety work in 2017-18. 417 Crosslink Transit Solutions has sponsored the (Conservation Youth Corp) CYC program for Toronto students to participate, a $5,000 donation. Work will be focussed at TTP and BCPV. 160 pounds of product donated to North York Harvest Food Bank through TRCA community engagement. Staff engagement due to high Lake Ontario water levels was critical in protecting the Toronto Island infrastructure and community, and well appreciated by the City of Toronto. Lakeview Cell one work well underway with almost 60,000 cubic metres of fill received already and first wetland habitat establishment works to commence shortly. WDL FPL site tour to Brampton Mayor and officials was well received, and advanced planning for establishing an EA co-proponency between City of Brampton and TRCA for downtown Brampton flood protection and River Walk projects. TRCA and Credit Valley Conservation hosted another successful Partners in Project Green Community Restoration event. Over 150 volunteers came out to the annual event and planted 530 trees and shrubs at the Claireville Conservation Area in Brampton. The event was sponsored by UPS, Air Canada and Precise Parklink. PPG’s Material Exchange with Coca-Cola Refreshments Canada and David Suzuki Foundation was featured in a Solid Waste and Recycling Magazine article published by Catherine Leighton. The project upcycled approximately 500 kg of syrup barrels into laneway planters used by Croft Lane. Read the whole article online. PPG received a $58,200 grant from the Independent Electricity System Operator's (IESO) Education and Capacity Building program to convene and run its Municipal Water Efficiency Eco-Cluster, a new group designed to enhance collaboration between five municipalities and their water audit programs, and facilitate the implementation of water/energy nexus projects. The grant will be allocated to support funding for five pilot projects (and case studies) and complete an assessment report that will be published on the IESO website. Largest installation of level 2 electric vehicle charging stations launched at Toronto Pearson, in partnership with TRCA's PPG program. Over 11,000 elementary and high School students enjoyed the Peel and York water festivals at Heart Lake and Bruce's Mill conservation areas, respectively. June All three levels of government announced $1.25 billion for the Don Mouth flood protection project, the largest project in TRCA history. SNAP received $50,000 grant from Environmental Defence to animate communities on climate action. Wet ‘n Wild had its grand opening; a renewed waterpark on TRCA’s landholdings. Conservation Authorities Act proposed legislation released, which reconfirmed CAs mandate and the value of the partnership with the Province. Four provincial plans released, and incorporated many of TRCA's comments to address stormwater management plans, watershed planning, Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Hosted fourth annual Bike the Creek event with City of Brampton, Town of Caledon and Region of Peel, with over 600 participants, including attendance by Minister McGarry. $75,000 received from Trillium Foundation through Green Durham Association for planning a gateway trail project in Goodwood Resource Management Tract in the Duffins Creek watershed in Durham. Leveraging this with an additional $25,000 from Parks Canada. Received $40,000 from MNRF to develop the next generation of flood forecasting and warning tools. 24-hour Summer Solstice race ran successfully at Albion Hills Conservation Area. 418 Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project construction proceeding well. First wetland being initiated in Cell 1 this week and starting construction of Cell 2 next week. In partnership with MNRF, Learn to Fish Program launched at Heart Lake Conservation Area in June; a further expansion of the Ontario Parks system program. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: July 18, 2017 ______________________________ Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A153/17 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Section IV item 12.3 - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #5/17, held on July 14, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 2:23 p.m., on Friday, July 28, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer 419 Authority Meeting #7/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, September 22, 2017. The Vice Chair Jack Heath, called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. PRESENT Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ron Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Jennifer Drake Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Brenda Hogg Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member ABSENT Maria Augimeri Chair Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Michael Ford Member Matt Mahoney Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member RES.#A154/17 - MINUTES Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/17, held on July 28, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 420 PRESENTATIONS A presentation by Richard Ubbens, Director, City of Toronto, in regard to the Toronto Ravine Strategy, as outlined in the City of Toronto Executive Committee staff report dated September 12, 2017. RES.#A155/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Brenda Hogg Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT staff report back to the Authority on the Ravine Strategy after approval of the Strategy from City of Toronto Council. CARRIED ______________________________ 421 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A156/17- PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Request for Proposal #10004424. Award of contract for Architectural, Landscape Architecture and Professional Engineering Services to provide final design and support through the site plan, tendering and construction of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s new administrative office building located at 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto. Moved by: Maria Kelleher Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT Contract #10004424 for Architectural, Landscape Architecture and Professional Engineering Services in support of the construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be awarded to ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd. in joint venture for a total cost not to exceed $3,533,860 plus HST, as they are the highest ranked proponent resulting from evaluation criteria set out in the Request for Proposal (RFP); THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the above-mentioned proponent, staff be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with the next highest ranked proponent; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/16, held on June 24, 2016, Resolution #A85/16 approved the construction of an administrative office building at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto and directed staff to take the necessary action to complete the Project, including the submission of formal requests for approval to the participating municipalities and the Province of Ontario. On February 24, 2017, staff reported at Authority Meeting #1/17 that all six of TRCA’s participating municipalities, by way of their respective Councils, had approved the Project and the allocation of $60,000,000 in new and existing capital funding toward the Project. On March 27, 2017 staff submitted a formal request to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to seek Minister’s approval of the rate of interest, pursuant to the requirements of Section 3(5) of the Conservation Authorities Act and to satisfy the lending conditions of a financial institution for funds to be borrowed for the Project. An interest rate not to exceed 3.75% on the funds to be borrowed to finance the construction of the building was approved by the Chief Administrative Officer of MNRF on August 14, 2017. 422 In March 2017, TRCA also sought approval from the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to allocate approximately $10 million to the Project from existing and future land sale disposition proceeds, inclusive of the provincial and TRCA share of the revenue. TRCA received a response to this request on August 28, 2017 advising that it was the Minister's decision to not grant an exemption to the Ministry's Generated Revenue Policy to enable the use of funds from land dispositions in support of TRCA’s Project. The explanation provided is that the Generated Revenue Policy reflects and supports the understanding between the province, municipalities and conservation authorities (CAs) around provincially eligible and provincially and municipally cost shared projects for CAs. The capital projects identified for capital reserve fund use reflect the shared provincial/municipal CA mandate (natural hazard management) including major maintenance of flood control structures and flood and erosion capital projects and related studies. The explanation also indicated the Minister's decision reconfirms and reinforces the understanding of what are the eligible provincial/municipal cost shared activities for CAs and ensures the provincial investment left with TRCA and generated revenue will be available to be applied to the capital projects identified for reserve funding. MNRF staff did however encourage TRCA to explore funding opportunities available from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s Green Investment Fund as well as potential future funding from MNRF's Innovation Market Development Section, Forest Industry, that could support the Project’s proposed use of engineered lumber sourced in Ontario. Staff will continue to investigate other funding opportunities for the Project including the ones provided by MNRF staff as well as opportunities to reduce the overall cost of the Project through the final design process. RATIONALE A Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) for Architectural, Landscape Architecture and Professional Engineering Services was issued via Biddingo on May 11, 2017 to invite firms to pre-qualify to provide final design and support through the site plan, tendering and construction of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s new administrative office building. On June 9, 2017, TRCA received submissions by service area as follows: Architectural Design 1. AECOM Canada Architects Ltd. 2. B+H Architects 3. Diamond Schmitt Architects 4. DTAH Architects Ltd. & Adamson Associates Architects 5. HOK Architects Corporation 6. Kearns Mancini Architects Inc. 7. Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. & Michael Green Architecture 8. Moriyama & Teshima Architects 9. Quadrangle 10. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 11. Sweeny & Co Architects 12. ZAS Architects & Bucholz McEvoy Architects in joint venture Landscape Design 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. B+H Architects 423 3. DTAH 4. NAK Design Strategies 5. PLANT Architect Inc. 6. PMA Landscape Architects 7. Schollen & Company Inc. 8. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 9. WSP Canada Group Ltd. Civil Engineering 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. LEA Consulting Ltd. 3. Mooney Metaxas Engineering Inc. 4. SCS Consulting Group 5. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 6. The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. (TMIG) 7. WSP Canada Group Ltd. Electrical Engineering 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. Integral Group 3. Mulvey & Banani International Inc. 4. Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering 5. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 6. WSP Canada Group Ltd. Mechanical Engineering 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. Integral Group 3. Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering 4. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 5. TMP Consulting Engineers 6. WSP Canada Group Ltd. Structural Engineering 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. Blackwell Structural Engineers 3. Entuitive and Moses Structural Engineers 4. Fast + Epp and LEA Consulting 5. IRC Building Sciences Group 6. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. (rjc Engineers) 7. SBM 8. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 9. WSP Canada Group Ltd. 424 An RFSQ Evaluation Kick-off Meeting was held on July 5, 2017 to explain the process to the evaluators. Following receipt of the submissions, TRCA staff undertook a compliance review to ensure conformance with the mandatory requirements as outlined in the RFSQ and evaluated the overall quality of the proposals. As result of this process NAK Design Strategies’ submission was disqualified for failure to provide a complete and executed copy of Table 1 that acknowledges receipt of the addenda and the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFSQ. All firms were subsequently notified of the results of the compliance review and the next steps and timeline associated with the evaluation process. A technical evaluation was then carried out by the evaluation teams comprised of the following TRCA staff: Engineering Firms Evaluation Team (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Structural) Albert Thomas, Construction Project Manager Aaron D’Souza, Senior Manager, Major Contracts Mike Fenning, Associate Director, Property and Risk Management Architecture and Landscape Firms Evaluation Team (Architect and Landscape) Carolyn Woodland Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Michael Tolensky, Deputy Chief Financial Officer Steven Heuchert, Associate Director, Planning and Development Evaluation scoring sheets were completed by each individual evaluator and signed and submitted on July 11, 2017 to TRCA’s project manager, Jones Lang LaSalle Real Estate Services Inc. (JLL). Evaluation scores were compiled by JLL, and weighted scoring results were provided to TRCA. On July 12, 2017, JLL facilitated a consensus meeting with the entire evaluation and Project Management team to achieve a consensus scoring that was agreed upon by all evaluators. The following are the pre-qualified firms that were identified as a result of this process as the top five proponents by service area responding to RFSQ# 10004424 (listed in alphabetical order): Architectural Design DTAH Architects Ltd. & Adamson Associates Architects Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. & Michael Green Architecture Moriyama & Teshima Architects Quadrangle ZAS Architects & Bucholz McEvoy Architects in joint venture Landscape Design AECOM Canada Ltd. DTAH PLANT Architect Inc. PMA Landscape Architects Schollen & Company Inc. Civil Engineering AECOM Canada Ltd. SCS Consulting Group Stantec Consulting Ltd. The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. (TMIG) WSP Canada Group Ltd. 425 Electrical Engineering Integral Group Mulvey & Banani International Inc. Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering Stantec Consulting Ltd. WSP Canada Group Ltd. Mechanical Engineering AECOM Canada Ltd. Integral Group Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering Stantec Consulting Ltd. WSP Canada Group Ltd. Structural Engineering Blackwell Structural Engineers Fast + Epp and LEA Consulting Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. SBM WSP Canada Group Ltd. On July 14, 2017, TRCA released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to invite the pre-qualified consultants to prepare and submit a separate technical and fee proposal. Proposals were received by TRCA on August 15, 2017 from the following teams in alphabetical order: DTAH Architects Ltd. and Adamson Associates Architects, with DTAH providing landscape design services, WSP providing civil engineering, Integral Group providing mechanical and electrical engineering, and Blackwell providing structural engineering support. Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. and Michael Green Architecture, with PLANT Architect Inc. providing landscape design services, WSP providing civil engineering, Smith and Andersen providing mechanical and electrical engineering, and Blackwell providing structural engineering support. Moriyama & Teshima Architects, with PLANT providing landscape design services, SCS Consulting providing civil engineering, Integral Group providing mechanical and electrical engineering and Fast + Epp and LEA providing structural engineering support. Quadrangle Ltd., with PLANT providing landscape design services, WSP providing civil engineering, Smith and Andersen providing mechanical and electrical engineering and Read Jones Christoffersen providing structural engineering support. ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd., with Schollen & Company providing landscape design services, TMIG providing civil engineering, Integral providing mechanical engineering, Mulvey & Banani International Inc. providing electrical engineering and Read Jones Christoffersen providing structural engineering support. A compliance review of the submitted proposals was completed to ensure conformance with the mandatory requirements as outlined in the RFP. All submissions were confirmed to be in conformance and the potential proponents were notified on August 15, 2017 of the results of the compliance review and the next steps in the process, including the details of the potential interview process. 426 The Selection Committee consisted of TRCA staff including Mike Fenning, Steven Heuchert, Laura Stephenson, Michael Tolensky and Carolyn Woodland. An Evaluation Kick-off Meeting on August 16, 2017 was facilitated by JLL to explain the evaluation process. The Committee then reviewed and evaluated the proposals based on the following technical criteria: Proponent’s Understanding, and Proposed Approach and Methodology for the Services; Proponent’s Team, Organization, Roles and Responsibilities; Unique Challenges and Opportunities Represented by the Site and the Schematic Design; Lessons Learned from Similar Projects; Schedule for Delivery of Services. Evaluation scoring sheets were completed by each individual evaluator and signed and submitted on August 22, 2017 to JLL to be compiled. The results were then prepared by JLL using a weighted scoring system consisting of 80% based on the technical review of the proposal, including 15% of the value of the points the Architectural Prime Proponent team earned during the Request for Statement Qualifications phase, and the remaining 20% based on the fee proposal calculated by JLL using the following formula: Number of Points = Lowest Fee / Proponent Fee x 20 points. On August 23, 2017, JLL facilitated a consensus meeting with the Selection Committee to achieve a consensus scoring on the submitted technical evaluation results compiled by JLL. Following completion of this process JLL provided the weighted scoring results for discussion and finalization by the Selection Committee and sought feedback on any outstanding questions or clarifications that may be outstanding. On August 24, 2017, ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd. were requested to provide a short presentation to provide an overview of their proposal and to clarify key questions by the Selection Committee that arose during the evaluation consensus meeting. The final results of the evaluation of received proposals are as follows: Proponent Fixed Fee Rank ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd. $3,533,860 1 Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. and Michael Green Architecture $3,750,885 2 Moriyama & Teshima Architects $4,070,000 3 DTAH Architects Ltd. and Adamson Associates Architects $2,948,700 4 Quadrangle Ltd. $2,810,765 5 Based on the evaluation process it was determined that the technical proposal and fee proposal submitted by ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd. was the highest rank proposal meeting the needs of TRCA’s Project and offering the best value for services. FINANCIAL DETAILS The final design and site plan approval process will be undertaken between October 2017 and into early 2019, followed by construction and commissioning phases that will conclude in 2021. The cost of the contract is $3,533,860, plus 10% contingency, plus HST. Funds are available in the Capital Budget for the contract period of 2017 – 2021, in account 006-50. 427 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will be delivering this project by utilizing an integrated design process, involving the expertise of a comprehensive design team, including key TRCA staff, the design team and other specialists to realize a highly efficient, cost effective building, and reduced long-term operating and maintenance costs. TRCA will also engage the expertise of a construction manager and material suppliers during the design process to ensure that construction of the building is delivered without any unnecessary delays. The key phases of the project milestones are as follows: Milestone Date / Duration Architectural Design Phase Oct 2, 2017 – July 16, 2018 Site Plan Approval Apr 2, 2018 – Feb 4, 2019 Tender Contract Documents July 30, 2018 – Feb 1, 2019 Award Construction Contract Mar 4, 2019 – May 24, 2019 Construction June 17, 2019 – Mar 1, 2021 Occupancy Mar 1 – 2021 – June 1, 2021 Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: lstephenson@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: mfenning@trca.on.ca Date: August 30, 2017 ______________________________ 428 RES.#A157/17 - BRAMPTON RIVERWALK FLOOD PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Direction to proceed with the Brampton Riverwalk Flood Protection Environmental Assessment as co-proponents with the City of Brampton. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Kelleher WHEREAS Recommendation #18 in “Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (2002)”, states, in part, “That the [Etobicoke Creek] river be diverted at Brampton…” in order to address flooding, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and integrate trails through the area; AND WHEREAS staff from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), with the support of the City of Brampton, have completed the following: a Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works Strategy (May 2013) which highlighted Special Policy Area (SPA) #3 as the 4th most significant flood vulnerable area in TRCA’s jurisdiction; a Comprehensive Flood Risk and Management Analysis for SPA #3 (2014); and the Downtown Brampton Flood Protection Feasibility Study (July 2016) which identified potential options for addressing the flood risk in SPA #3; AND WHEREAS the City of Brampton, with the support of TRCA, is currently undertaking a Flood Remediation Feasibility Study that will identify existing urban drainage infrastructure deficiencies, assess the urban drainage system performance with the short listed flood protection solutions identified in the 2016 Flood Protection Feasibility Study, and will provide the City and TRCA with a list of recommendations to address urban drainage deficiencies and provide further refinements to the short listed flood protection solutions; AND WHEREAS the City of Brampton is advancing plans to revitalize the Downtown Brampton area through an initiative called Brampton Riverwalk; AND WHEREAS the Brampton Riverwalk revitalization is dependent on the implementation of a flood protection solution for the Downtown Brampton SPA #3; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff, in collaboration with the City of Brampton, be directed to undertake an Environmental Assessment (EA) in order to confirm a preferred alternative that will eliminate the risk due to flooding from Etobicoke Creek, to the Downtown Brampton SPA #3, the EA referenced herein as the Brampton Riverwalk Flood Protection EA (or BRFP EA); THAT the BRFP EA be used to further explore, in part: enhancements to aquatic and terrestrial habitats associated with Etobicoke Creek in the Downtown Brampton area; integrate with municipal servicing and transit; provide opportunities to enhance the Downtown Brampton public realm; and to allow the broader revitalization activities called Brampton Riverwalk to flourish; 429 THAT TRCA staff be directed to seek $1.5 million in funding from the federal National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) for the BRFP EA, contingent on matching funds being provided from TRCA (provided by the Region of Peel’s Climate Budget (2018 and 2019) for flood remedial studies) and the City of Brampton (seek $1,000,000 of funding from the City of Brampton 2018-2020 capital budgets); THAT, upon authorization of funding, staff be directed to retain consultants deemed necessary to undertake the BRFP EA, in accordance with TRCA’s Purchasing Policy; THAT staff establish, as appropriate, Technical Advisory and Community Liaison Committees to support the BRFP EA process; THAT staff be directed to collaborate with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) throughout the BRFP EA process to streamline issues resolution and approvals; THAT staff be directed to explore mechanisms, such as a Memorandum of Understanding with City of Brampton, outlining the respective roles and responsibilities for each agency throughout the BRFP EA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement contracts, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Between 1854 and 1952, the historic downtown Brampton was subject to nearly annual occurrences of flooding. In 1952, the Etobicoke-Mimico Creek Conservation Authority constructed a trapezoidal concrete-lined bypass channel, which was designed to convey up to the 100 year return period storm event. This channel has been very effective in eliminating the occurrence of flooding to the downtown area since that time, including the remnants of Hurricane Hazel in 1954. Despite the concrete bypass channel’s success in effectively eliminating the occurrence of low to moderate magnitude flooding from Etobicoke Creek to the downtown core of Brampton, Brampton does remain vulnerable to flooding during flood events above the 350 year storm. Over the decades, Brampton’s downtown core has developed to now provide major institutional, residential, commercial, cultural and recreational land uses, all of which remain vulnerable to flooding under these extreme events. To allow for the continued viability of the downtown core and to address the significant social and economic hardships that would result from strict adherence to provincial one zone flood plain management policies, the Province of Ontario approved SPA #3 in 1986 for Downtown Brampton in conjunction with the Brampton Secondary Plan (OP84-058). Provincial one zone flood plain policies are the most restrictive policies as it relates to land use within a floodplain. The SPA was developed in recognition that areas with current and historical land uses within the floodplain would result in significant economic hardship if a strict one zone policy designation was applied in those areas. As such the SPA is used to restrict new intensified land uses from occurring in those areas, but still allows for existing or similar uses to occur. TRCA supported the SPA designation and produced a boundary that was reflective of the limit of the floodplain as it was known at that time. Since then, the City has experienced significant growth and development pressures within the SPA. 430 In 2011, the City of Brampton, in collaboration with TRCA, submitted a package to the Province to amend the policies and boundaries of the SPA #3. Between 2011 and 2013, TRCA provided a number of technical updates to support the City’s SPA submission to the Province including: a Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works Strategy (presented in Resolution #A88/13 at Authority Meeting #3/13, held on May 24, 2013) that identified the Downtown Brampton SPA #3 as being TRCA’s #4 priority flood vulnerable area in the TRCA jurisdiction; and a Comprehensive Flood Risk and Management Analysis of the Downtown Brampton Special Policy Area based upon the 2012 Etobicoke Creek hydrology update as summarized in Resolution #A233/13 at Authority Meeting #11/13, held on January 13, 2014. In 2013, TRCA, with the support of the City of Brampton, initiated the Downtown Brampton Flood Protection Feasibility Study. This study was completed in July 2016, and suggested a short-list of alternatives that could be used to address the risk of flooding from Etobicoke Creek to the Downtown Brampton SPA. The Feasibility Study concluded that the majority of stand-alone works would not entirely permanently eliminate the risk due to flooding from Etobicoke Creek to the Downtown Brampton SPA, and as such, some combination of the following individual works would likely be required: flood protection landforms upstream and potentially downstream of the concrete channel; lowering the concrete channel; improving the channel form conditions at the downstream end of the concrete channel; improving bridge crossings over the river. Greenfield stormwater management and individual flood proofing were also suggested in the Feasibility Study but it was recognized that neither would contribute to the permanent removal of flood risk to the Downtown Brampton SPA. TRCA and the City of Brampton will work with the Province to explore the use of these flood protection measures in developing a permanent flood protection solution for the Downtown Brampton SPA. The preferred combination will have to conform to MNRF guidelines and policies, and the TRCA and City of Brampton will work closely with the MNRF throughout the EA process in order to ensure that it does. A second feasibility study under the direction of the City (with TRCA support) is currently underway to explore how to manage the impacts of the short-list of flood protection alternatives on urban run-off in the SPA. The results of this study are anticipated near the end of 2017. The City of Brampton has developed a Riverwalk vision for the downtown core, the goals of which are to create new vibrant public spaces and amenities, release new energy and growth through community revitalization, and enhance the attraction, character and identity for the community. In order to undertake this ambitious project, the implementation of a permanent solution for addressing flood risk to the Downtown Brampton SPA is required. 431 Building upon the last four years of extensive technical and policy related studies for flood management, which included defining the dynamics of flooding within the downtown core and identifying potential solutions to flood risk, the City of Brampton has requested TRCA join them as co-proponents on an EA to determine a preferred flood protection solution that will enable the realization of Brampton’s Riverwalk dream. At the same time, the identification of a permanent flood protection solution will enable TRCA to advance towards an Etobicoke Creek where “…people to live in harmony with the environment, where the water is clean, where green open spaces are vital and connected, and where fish and wildlife thrive”, (Vision for “Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks”, 2002). RATIONALE TRCA, as owners of the concrete trapezoidal channel, have long been aware of the initial and residual flood risks associated with the Downtown Brampton SPA. TRCA has also been long aware of the environmental impacts that the concrete channel has imposed on the quality of fish and wildlife habitat and the lack of public access to the Etobicoke Creek in this area, as was identified in Greening Our Watersheds, and more recently in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds: Technical Update Report (2010). TRCA supports the City of Brampton’s desire to revitalize their historic downtown area through the implementation of their bold steps for the Brampton Riverwalk. The implementation of the City’s revitalization efforts remains contingent on determining a permanent solution for flood protection, which also takes into consideration the potential impacts of climate induced changes in stream flow, extreme weather and associated flood risk in the area. FINANCIAL DETAILS Proposed budget is as follows: Funding Source Proposed Amount TRCA (Region of Peel Climate Budget) $200,000.00 (2018 budget) $300,000.00 (2019 budget) City of Brampton $1,000,000.00 Federal Government (NDMP) $1,500,000.00 Total $3,000,000.00 Project costs will be tracked through the 193 series of accounts to be established for this Project. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The works to be undertaken include: Remainder of 2017 until March 2018 Establish a Memorandum of Understanding and Project Charter between TRCA and the City of Brampton; Obtain funding for the EA process; Collaborate with City and TRCA staff involved with the second feasibility study; and Retain consultants for the EA. April 2018 until March 2019 Undertake the Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference (EA ToR) process to determine the scope for the EA process, including the requisite Indigenous, public, stakeholder and agency engagement; 432 Undertake any necessary Existing Conditions studies required for the EA process (archaeology, planning, traffic and socioeconomic studies, ecological studies, servicing, etc.); Submit a draft and final EA ToR for public review; Address issues raised through the EA ToR process. April 2019 until April 2020 Undertake the EA as per the conditions of the approved EA ToR, including the requisite engagement program and incorporation of landscape design into the preferred solution to address public realm and sustainability considerations; Complete all technical studies in support of the EA; Submit a draft EA for public and agency review and comment; May 2020 until March 2021 Submit the final EA for public and agency review and comment. Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion@trca.on.ca Date: August 31, 2017 ______________________________ 433 RES.#A158/17 - EASTERN AND BROADVIEW FLOOD PROTECTION DUE DILIGENCE AND MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Award of Contract #10005518. Award of Contract #10005518 for professional consulting services related to the planning and management of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, as part of the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Due Diligence and Municipal Class EA. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Kelleher THAT Contract #10005518 for professional consulting services related to the planning and management of a municipal class environmental assessment (EA) as part of the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Due Diligence and Municipal Class EA, be awarded to Dillon Consulting Limited at a total cost not to exceed $290,002.00, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal for value meeting TRCA’s specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 30% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Toronto City Council Meeting #27, held on March 28, 2017, the Planning and Growth Management Committee Report PG18.6 was adopted, within which the Deputy City Manager, Cluster B, was directed to commence, together with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Recommendation 4). At Authority Meeting #5/17, held on June 23, 2017, Resolution #A104/17 was approved, in part, as follows: …WHEREAS the City of Toronto and TWRC have requested that TRCA lead a Due Diligence and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study, which will be undertaken to identify a flood protection solution to remove the remaining flood risk to these 8 ha of urban land north of the elevated Metrolinx railway embankment; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a Delivery Agreement with TWRC to undertake the Due Diligence and Class EA studies;… A Delivery Agreement between TRCA and TWRC is currently under review between the two co-proponents, with an approved overall budget of $1.8 million. This includes Class EA planning, management, and engineering consulting services in support of identifying a potential flood protection solution for the Eastern and Broadview Class EA. 434 In support of the Class EA, TRCA requires qualified project management and technical support in the development of a Municipal Class EA, which, in coordination with the project management and other consultant teams, will involve informing the design, evaluation and integration of potential flood protection solutions, cost estimation services, planning support, and public and stakeholder engagement services, among other deliverables. The review and synthesis of various technical reports in support of the EA process, and leading the write-up and production of a Due Diligence Report or, if applicable, a Municipal Class EA document, will be a major responsibility of the consultant. The scope of this work will include an initial due diligence phase (Stage 1) which may lead to an expedited Class EA process (Stage 2) if the Port Lands Executive Steering Committee (a committee of senior staff from the City of Toronto, TWRC and TRCA that meets on a monthly basis to provide executive level decisions on issues related to Port Lands development) deems that viable solutions, from an impact and cost perspective, are identified during Stage 1. TRCA will lead a project management team consisting of staff from TRCA, the City and TWRC to ensure that the studies are coordinated with the large number of initiatives that are currently underway in the project area. These include, but are not limited to, the Gardiner EA, Port Lands and South of Eastern Class EA, Metrolinx Transit Project Assessment Process, Toronto Transit Commission Subway Relief Line planning, the detailed design of the Don River and Central Waterfront Project, and TRCA’s Don River Watershed Hydrological Modeling review. RATIONALE Request for Proposal (RFP) #10005518 was released via Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) to all potential bidders on July 13, 2017, with a total of three firms submitting proposals in advance of the 10:00 a.m. submission deadline on August 2, 2017 (Table 1). Table 1. List of consultants who submitted proposals and associated fees Firms Fee Proposal (Plus HST) Dillon $290,002.00 Amec Foster Wheeler $298,430.00 AECOM $385,441.00 All four members on the evaluation committee, consisting of staff from TRCA and TWRC, received copies of the submitted proposals on August 2, 2017. At the proposal evaluation meeting held on August 22, 2017, consensus was reached between all members of the committee that the proposal submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited offered the best service for the best value. The criteria used to evaluate the submissions and to select the successful consultant included the following: Overall conformance of proposal submission package with the terms of the RFP; Understanding of project scope of work; Experience of firm working on projects of similar scope and budget; Expertise of staff and appropriate allocation of resources; Approach and methodology of work plan, including innovative ideas, identification of project limitations, and proposed solutions; Clear and well thought out schedule and timelines to achieve project objectives; and Detailed cost breakdown, including an itemized cost of additional works anticipated beyond the approved budget. 435 FINANCIAL DETAILS The creation of a sub-project within the City of Toronto’s Waterfront Revitalization Initiatives 2017-2026 Capital Budget and Plan has been recommended in order to cover the full cost of the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class EA. Funding will be tracked through a series of 191-70 accounts. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA, TWRC and the City of Toronto will work as co-proponents to identify a viable flood protection solution for the area north of the railway embankment. The project will consist of a two stage process: a) Stage 1: Due Diligence stage that will follow Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process, minus the public engagement elements of the study to confirm that a viable alternative can be established; and b) Stage 2: Undertaking the formal Municipal Class EA process if directed to proceed by the Executive Steering Committee – it will be reconfirmed whether a Schedule B or C Class EA is required at this time. For the above-mentioned works, TRCA requires the support of several consultant teams in order to fulfill the requirements of the EA planning and design process. Three consultant teams will lead the implementation and management of the required services and will coordinate with each other in order to 1) characterize the environmental, geotechnical and hydrogeological subsurface conditions of the project area; 2) carry-out hydraulic modeling and design services of the various flood protection solutions under consideration; and 3) provide planning and engineering support in the development of the due diligence and Class EA documents. RFPs have been released and firms selected and approved to lead Tasks 1 and 2. Dillon Consulting Limited is recommended as the consultant to lead the Task 3 services outlined in RFP#10005518. Report prepared by: Corey Wells, extension 5233 Emails: cwells@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion@trca.on.ca Date: July 27, 2017 ______________________________ 436 RES.#A159/17 - BLACK CREEK DAM DREDGING PROJECT Award of Contract #10005816 for Hauling and Disposal of Sediment. Award of Contract #10005816 for the hauling and disposal of approximately 7,600 tonnes of sediment to be removed as part of the dredging works upstream of the Black Creek Dam located at the western extent of Downsview Dells Park in the City of Toronto. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Kelleher THAT Contract #10005816 for the hauling and disposal of approximately 7,600 tonnes of sediment as part of the dredging works for the Black Creek Dam Dredging Project, in the City of Toronto be awarded to Loc Pave Construction at a total cost of $332,500.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder that meets TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such actions as are necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1959, TRCA constructed the Black Creek Dam to control Black Creek in the flood prone area of Jane Street and Sheppard Avenue West following the drafting of the Plan for Flood Control and Water Conservation and Hurricane Hazel in 1954. The dam attenuates high flows prior to reaching the Oakdale Golf & Country Club located west of Jane Street. Large stones make up the bulkhead, weir crest, stilling basin and spillway of the dam structure. Downstream of the stilling basin, the watercourse flows through a linear rip-rap lined channel for approximately 120 metres before meeting up with the natural channel. Over time, sediment accumulated and vegetation grew in the area upstream of the dam’s inlet. A significant amount of this sediment was deposited at the project site following severe weather events in 2005 and 2013 after heavy rains resulted in major wash-outs and valley slope erosion upstream. In 2017, TRCA will be restoring the water holding capacity of the dam and cleaning out the culvert inlet by removing deposited sediment, clearing vegetation, and removing woody debris and garbage that has accumulated at the dam. Once the dredging and maintenance works are complete, the channel from the inlet to approximately 70 metres upstream will be reshaped and stabilized through installation of vegetated rock buttresses, armourstone weirs and channel bed protection measures that are appropriate for the local flow regime. Furthermore, the floodplain and portions of the staging area will be re-naturalized with a comprehensive restoration plan that features over 1,000 native tree and shrub plantings. Finally, a permanent access ramp will be formalized over the dam to facilitate regular minor maintenance of the dam’s culvert structure. 437 RATIONALE Upon comparison of the existing conditions topographic survey with the original design drawing, it was estimated that approximately 7,600 tonnes of sediment has accumulated on-site since the dam was constructed. This material will be removed from the area upstream of the dam as part of the proposed dredging and channel works. Soil chemical testing determined that the soil to be removed off-site is classified as non-hazardous, however it is considered to be contaminated, exceeding Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Residential/Parkland/Institutional as well as Industrial/Commercial parameters for Benzo (a), Pyrene and Benzo (b) fluoranthene. As such, before the award of the contract and to ensure that the contaminated sediment will be disposed of in accordance with MOECC requirements, all forms associated with Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 180 will be submitted to TRCA to verify that the disposal facility is licensed to accept this material. Prior to transporting the sediment, a Certificate of Approval for a waste management system from the hauler and a Certificate of Approval for a waste disposal site from the disposal facility are required to be provided to TRCA’s contract administrator. During the works, the contractor will provide a bill of lading ticket for each load from the approved disposal facility. TRCA will also obtain all insurance documentation as requested in the Request for Tender (RFT) including current pollution liability insurance in the amount of two million dollars from the contractor. The RFT for Contract #10005816 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on August 14, 2017 with 18 contractors being registered as full document takers. A mandatory site visit was held on August 22, 2017 to which the following seven companies attended: Di-Corp; Glenn Windrem Trucking; Loc Pave; Superior Disposal; Terranova; TMI; United Rentals. The RFT closed on August 31, 2017 and the Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders same day with the following results: CONTRACT #10005816 TENDER RESULTS BIDDERS TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (Plus HST) Loc Pave Construction $332,500.00 Superior Disposal $349,600.00 Glenn Windrem Trucking $387,500.00 TRCA staff reviewed the bids against its own cost estimate and determined that Loc Pave Construction‘s bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined in the contract documents. As such, TRCA staff recommend that Loc Pave Construction be awarded Contract #10005816 for the hauling and disposal of approximately 7,600 tonnes of sediment from the Black Creek Dam Dredging Project for a total cost not to exceed $332,500.00, plus a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA’s specifications. 438 Under TRCA’s 10 Year Strategic Plan (2013-2022), this project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #2: Manage our Regional Water Resources for Current and Future Generations, as the proposed works will contribute to the resiliency of our water systems by removing a significant amount of contaminated soils and woody debris that has accumulated at the dam, and restoring the flood plain with native, riparian vegetation. The removal of sediment will also restore the original function of the dam thereby mitigating flood risks within the area. The proposed vegetated rock buttresses and channel bed stabilization measures along the inlet channel will reduce erosion along its length, reducing sediment release and encouraging improved aquatic health. FINANCIAL DETAILS All funding for this project is provided by the City of Toronto through the capital Flood Control Maintenance project within account 107-26. Report prepared by: Sarah Gates, 647-539-5132 Emails: sgates@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647-808-6542 Emails: arehana@trca.on.ca Date: September 1, 2017 Attachments: 1 439 ^ J A N E S T SHEPPARD A V E W 0 150 300 Meters F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2017] May Not b e Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend ^Project Location Watercourses Floodline Regulation Limit TRCA Property Parcel Assessment Project LocationBlackCreek # ^SITE Attachment 1 440 RES.#A160/17 - REFORESTATION SEEDLING PROCUREMENT, 2017-2021 Approval of a preferred source contract with Somerville Nurseries Inc., to supply seedlings for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's planting program. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Kelleher THAT the contract for the supply of reforestation seedlings for the 2017 – 2021 program years be awarded to Somerville Nurseries Inc. on a preferred source basis, at a total cost not to exceed $150,000 plus applicable taxes, per program year, it being the supplier that can provide the product which best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications at an acceptable price; THAT the contract be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and, as necessary, solicitor; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA has a long history of tree planting and reforestation programs, and on average, since 2001, plants 33 hectares of land per year. To accomplish this, TRCA utilizes a variety of plant material, including bare root whip stock, potted container stock, as well as reforestation seedlings. This plant material comes from both the TRCA’s Native Plant Nursery and the open market. The majority of this material is made up of reforestation seedlings and on average totals about 50,000 seedlings a year. Somerville Nurseries has been the largest and most reliable supplier of seedling stock in southern Ontario. For more than 10 years it has been TRCA's primary supplier of seedling stock, with some additional seedlings being procured from other smaller growers throughout the Province of Ontario. Somerville Nurseries is also the main supplier of seedling to TRCA’s major project partners including Trees Ontario and adjacent conservation authorities. TRCA, in partnership with other Greater Toronto Area conservation authorities (Credit Valley, Nottawasaga Valley, Lake Simcoe Region and Halton Region) has been coordinating the purchase of reforestation seedlings as a means of supplying their individual program requirements. While each conservation authority forecasts its own requirements independently, orders are coordinated to ensure that Somerville Nurseries offers equivalent unit pricing (below market list) to the conservation authorities, providing each the benefit of combined purchase pricing. At Executive Committee Meeting #7/08, held on September 5, 2008, Resolution #B101/08 was approved, in part, as follows: …THAT staff be authorized to negotiate terms satisfactory to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff with Somerville Nurseries Inc. to ensure an uninterrupted supply of reforestation seedlings based on TRCA seedling demand forecasts to provide for program and project needs to December 31, 2009;... 441 At this meeting, approval was granted for the purchase of seedlings for 2009 planting projects, and for staff to negotiate with Somerville Nurseries Inc., for the growing of material for 2010 and 2011. Approval was also granted to extend the seedling demand forecast to include the projected requirements for an additional five year period (2012-2016), along with the approval to purchase these seedlings provided pricing remains favourable, and funding is available. RATIONALE Somerville Nurseries Inc. has a long history of supplying conservation authorities’ requirements for consistent quality reforestation stock in the south and central Ontario regions. For more than 10 years it has been TRCA's primary supplier for seedling stock, with some additional seedlings being procured from other smaller growers further afield, when necessary. The only other potential supplier of these seedlings identified by staff is located in Kemptville Ontario, over four hours away. During planting season, seedlings are often picked up twice daily making this other supplier much less feasible, especially considering the higher pricing. Somerville is conveniently located less than 60 minutes away from the TRCA’s nursery office. Tree seedling production usually requires a four year commitment from both the supplier and buyers, due to the time required to collect and sow seed and grow the seedlings to the required sizes. TRCA would like to reaffirm its commitment with Somerville Nurseries through 2017 – 2021 to ensure an uninterrupted supply of tree seedlings to meet TRCA's projected demands for programs and projects. Tree seedling purchases from Somerville Nurseries for program years 2015 and 2016 averaged $93,000, annually, before taxes. Indications are that the demand in 2017 and 2018 will exceed that average. Somerville Nurseries Inc. continues to offer TRCA the best combination of: consistent seedling quality; seed zone and genetic source control; locally collected native seed, locally grown seedlings; excellent unit pricing; ability to provide for identified stock - species, size, type, age-class; flexibility to meet last minute demand for additional stock; convenience as the most local supplier; and willingness to work with conservation authorities to achieve seedling target demand. Staff is recommending awarding the seedling supply agreement for a further five years to ensure that there is not a shortfall in seedling inventories which would negatively affect TRCA’s future reforestation planting commitments. Failure to take such action may result in scheduling delays and/or cancellation of orders for reforestation stock. The net result could mean a reduction in planting effort. FINANCIAL DETAILS All costs associated with the procurement of reforestation stock are recovered from the end user program or project, in the year in which the seedlings are purchased and delivered. Funds have been allocated in individual project/program budgets. 442 Somerville Nurseries Inc. requires a 25% deposit (standard terms) to confirm the spring seedling order by December 31st of the previous year. Report prepared by: Mary Jane Moroz, extension 5649, Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: mmoroz@trca.on.ca, rtoninger@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mary Jane Moroz, extension 5649 Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: mmoroz@trca.on.ca, rtoninger@trca.on.ca Date: August 25, 2017 ______________________________ 443 RES.#A161/17 - OPEN INFORMATION AND DATA POLICY Approval of Policy for Public Sharing. Approval of the Open Information and Data Policy which is intended to provide guidance and direction on the creation of an open information and data system for TRCA as a whole. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Kelleher THAT the Open Information and Data Policy, as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved. CARRIED RATIONALE The Open Information and Data Policy outlines the principles, roles and responsibilities related to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA’s) efforts to make information, documents and data, routinely available in machine readable format for any public use. The Policy supports TRCA’s Strategic Plan through the creation of opportunities to openly share data and knowledge for public use, and is consistent with the “open government” approach being taken by many federal and provincial agencies, regional municipalities and some conservation authorities. The purpose of the Policy is to provide guidance and direction to TRCA staff on the creation of an open information and data system for TRCA as a whole. The Policy is to remove barriers and set the rules by which TRCA information and data are made available to the public as valuable, machine readable datasets. Many of TRCA’s information assets are currently publically available on the TRCA website www.trca.ca, however many datasets collected and maintained by TRCA are only available by request. The intent is to make more (select) datasets readily available to the public for increased transparency and to increase efficiency by making regularly requested data available online for immediate access and use. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Open Data and Information Team will work with staff and TRCA’s Data and Digital Technology Committee to develop procedures relating to the implementation of the Policy, and will be responsible for the review and screening of information and data to be made available through this system. Currently a page on the corporate website has been created to consolidate information that is presently available (eg. Authority minutes) along with additional TRCA information and policies that may be of interest to the public. Additional corporate information and datasets will be reviewed and added to the website, if appropriate, along with a corporate open data license that has been developed and reviewed by TRCA’s solicitors. This policy will also be added to this developing webpage. 444 A longer term objective is to implement a more robust online portal for sharing data and information more broadly. This will be developed in consultation with TRCA’s municipal partners and stakeholders to integrate with other systems as appropriate. Staff is currently liaising with the City of Toronto, York Region and Conservation Ontario regarding the development of a corporate open data/information process and have been contributing metadata (information about TRCA’s datasets) to facilitate awareness and sharing of information among these agencies. Similar work and discussions will be undertaken with other partners and stakeholders as TRCA’s system evolves. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Scott Jarvie, 289-268-3941 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca, sjarvie@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Scott Jarvie, 289-268-3941 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca, sjarvie@trca.on.ca Date: August 29, 2017 Attachments: 1 445 OPEN INFORMATION AND DATA POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................................................ 2 3. SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 4. POLICY STATEMENTS / ACTION ITEMS ............................................................................................... 2 4.1. Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................................ 2 5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................................ 3 6. DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Category Application to the General Public or Have Significant Implications Approved by Authority Approval date (last amendment) September 22 2017 Approval resolution (if applicable) Eg. A5/16 Responsible Business Unit (Who Authored) Corporate Secretariat Responsible program manager (For Implementation) Kathy Stranks/Jason Ramharry 416-661-6600 ext. 5264 and 5216 kstranks@trca.on.ca and jramharry@trca.on.ca Review Cycle 2 Years Date Required by: 22/09/2019 446 Open Information and Data Page 2 PREFACE The Open Information and Data Policy outlines the principles, roles and responsibilities related to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA’s) efforts to make information, and data readily available in machine readable format for any use. The Open Information and Data Policy supports Strategy 8 of TRCA’s Strategic Plan – Gather and share the best urban sustainability knowledge, through the creation of opportunities to openly share data and knowledge for public use. TRCA routinely gathers information in the research it has done; this gathering is funded publically so TRCA feels an obligation to make it publically available. TRCA wants to expedite and facilitate making this collected information readily accessible so that it may be put to use. 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance and direction to staff on making information available using an open information and data system for TRCA as a whole. The Open Information and Data Policy is to set the protocols by which TRCA information and data are made available to the public. TRCA may publish information and data online to improve transparency and public participation, enhance access to TRCA services, and ultimately strengthen transparency and contribute to a healthier and more sustainable region. 2. AUTHORITY This policy may be updated, revised or rescinded by the Authority. 3. SCOPE This policy applies to all data and information aspects of TRCA’s business. 4. POLICY STATEMENTS / ACTION ITEMS 4.1. Guiding Principles 4.1.1. TRCA will share information and data while adhering to rights of privacy, security and confidentiality and TRCA’s commercial interest, as identified in the Conservation Authorities Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and other legislation, as applicable. 4.1.3. TRCA will identify existing and potential information and data for release as part of the policy which includes new and existing datasets, publication of information and data, and maintain legacy data and information as per TRCA’s Records Management Policy; 4.1.4. TRCA will endeavour to make information and data available in a timely manner. 447 Open Information and Data Page 3 4.1.5. Use of data by external parties is subject to the conditions of use outlined in a Data Sharing Agreement. The Information and Privacy Officer, designated by the Chair of the Authority as the corporate lead for management of records, or their delegate is responsible for open information and data release, awareness, training and issue resolution, and for maintaining the Open Data Licence. 5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE Procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Open Information and Data Policy shall be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance. Supervisors are accountable for ensuring compliance with this policy. Where staff determine they cannot comply with their roles and responsibilities outlined in the Open Information and Data Policy they shall bring their non-compliance issues to the Data and Digital Technology Committee for review. The Chair of the Committee will recommend to the Information and Privacy Officer an agreed upon course of action. 6. DEFINITIONS Data - facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis. Dataset - a collection of raw, non-manipulated data usually presented in tabular form with associated metadata, and which is machine readable. Data Sharing Agreement – a document that identifies the terms and conditions upon which TRCA data may be used and distributed – including an appropriate disclaimer and requirement for acknowledgement of the source of the shared data. Information - Information is data that has been converted into a meaningful and useful context, usually in the form of a document, web application, video or some other media file. Open Data - data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share alike. Open Information – documents and other information not considered data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share alike. 448 RES.#A162/17 - GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE NATURAL HERITAGE AND AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS Responses to EBR Postings: 013-1014 and 013-0968. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s draft response to the Province of Ontario as it relates to the proposed criteria, methods and mapping for a Regional Natural Heritage System and the draft Agricultural System mapping and implementation procedures. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Ballinger WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has reviewed the Province of Ontario’s proposed criteria, methods and mapping for the regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and draft mapping of and implementation procedures for the Agricultural System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Greenbelt Plan areas; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has drafted two letters detailing TRCA’s comments on the two proposed systems, to be finalized and submitted by the Environmental Bill of Rights of Ontario (EBR) deadline of October 4, 2017 (Attachments 1 and 2); THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff report on TRCA’s draft comments to the Province for a Regional Natural Heritage System (EBR # 013-1014) by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and on the draft Agricultural System mapping and implementation procedures (EBR # 013-0968) by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs be endorsed; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA’s municipal partners, Conservation Ontario and neighbouring conservation authorities be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Province recently completed the coordinated review of the four provincial land use plans for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) and, in doing so, released revised versions of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, which are in effect as of July 1, 2017. TRCA staff provided a summary and initial staff observations of the four updated provincial plans released by the Province on May 18, 2017, as approved by Resolution #A124/17 at Authority Meeting #5/17 held on June 23, 2017. Building upon recommendations put forward by an advisory panel for the coordinated review led by David Crombie, the Province proclaimed, through the release of the amended plans, that they would lead the development and mapping of both an Agricultural System and a Natural Heritage System (NHS) across the GGH by the summer of 2017. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) was identified as the lead to draft criteria and methods and develop mapping for the NHS for the GGH beyond the Greenbelt Area. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) was tasked with working with municipalities and stakeholders to develop and map an Agricultural System to protect Ontario’s supply of farmland and support its agri-food sector. 449 On July 6, 2017, OMAFRA and MNRF simultaneously posted the proposed Agricultural System (EBR# 013-0968) and the proposed criteria, methods and mapping for the NHS (EBR# 013-1014) for public comment on the Environmental Registry. In addition to the Province’s request for comments, Conservation Ontario (CO) has requested TRCA’s comments (September 15, 2017) in advance of the Province’s comment submission deadline of October 4, 2017. As many of the objectives of the Agricultural and Natural Heritage Systems are co-dependent, this staff report will summarize and provide key recommendations on both EBR postings concurrently. Natural Heritage System NHSs are described as being made up of natural heritage features and areas (core areas) linked by natural corridors (linkages) to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, and viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems. Mapping the environmental landscapes that make up the NHS is of particular importance for areas of the GGH such as TRCA’s jurisdiction that have high fragmentation and habitat loss. Through the EBR posting, the MNRF released and requested public consultation on a Summary of Criteria and Methods and proposed map (Fig. 3 of the Summary Report), as well as an online map viewer, of the proposed NHS for the Growth Plan for the GGH. As indicated in the Summary Report, a more comprehensive “Technical Report” with a detailed description of methods and data sources is available on request from MNRF. TRCA staff contacted MNRF and received this document on July 12, 2017 and immediately circulated it for review and comment. The proposed NHS was developed based on guiding principles and criteria regarding the composition and size of core areas and linkages. The total area of the proposed NHS is approximately 1.18 million ha, or 45% of the Growth Plan area (excluding settlement areas). It does not extend into settlement areas or the Greenbelt, which make up a significant portion of TRCA’s jurisdiction. Within TRCA’s jurisdiction, the Growth Plan NHS has been proposed in a number of small areas between the Greenbelt and the urban (settlement) area. The majority of these areas abut the existing Greenbelt NHS, while some adjoin official plan settlement designations. Most of these additions appear to have been included as part of the final review and refinement process after core areas and linkages had been identified. Agricultural System The provincial land use plans define the Agricultural System as a group of inter-connected elements that collectively create a viable, thriving agricultural sector. It has two components: 1. An agricultural land base comprised of prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, and rural lands that together create a continuous productive land base for agriculture; and 2. An agri-food network which includes infrastructure, services and assets important to the viability of the agri-food sector. Through the EBR posting, OMAFRA released the following three products that support the implementation of the Agricultural System policies in the updated provincial plans: 1. Draft Implementation Procedures for the Agricultural System that will guide municipalities and others on how to implement Agricultural System policies in their communities; 450 2. A web-based Draft Agricultural System Portal containing extensive mapping of the agricultural land base and agri-food network components, which can be used to identify existing agri-food assets and clusters for economic development purposes. The maps will also inform Agricultural Impact Assessments (i.e. assessment of potential adverse impacts from non-agricultural uses to the Agricultural System and how impacts can be avoided); and 3. Draft Agricultural Land Base Map, which includes the Greenbelt Plan’s two specialty crop areas, existing municipally designated prime agricultural areas, additional prime agricultural areas identified using the Land Evaluation and Area Review, and “candidate areas” that municipalities have the flexibility of designating as primary agricultural areas or rural lands. The agricultural land base mapping may be refined by municipalities in accordance with the Agricultural System Implementation Procedures. Draft TRCA Comments and Key Recommendations Natural Heritage System Below is a summary listing from Attachment 1 of TRCA’s recommendations for MNRF’s consideration on the proposed regional NHS. TRCA recommends that: The regional NHS for the GGH integrate municipal and conservation authority NHS data to avoid the perception of the regional NHS as a higher “tier”, provincial-level NHS, undermining the value of existing local NHSs; Additional context be added to the introductory sections of the technical report and summary document, including the goals and objectives of the NHS; recognition of the role of local NHSs given their importance for highly urbanized jurisdictions like TRCA; clarification on how the proposed NHS relates to other provincial NHS development initiatives; recognition of the importance of ecosystem restoration and green infrastructure in achieving the objectives of the NHS; and recognition of the impacts of climate change and their relation to the NHS; The development of the NHS be informed by a set of ecological guiding principles alongside the proposed process-based principles; Three of the proposed guiding principles be edited to better acknowledge local NHS mapping and variations in landscape context across the region; MNRF re-evaluate the size criteria for core areas and linkages so that they are more appropriate to the species, scale and landscape context of each area to which they are applied; All valley and stream corridors (not just “major” ones) be included in the NHS; MNRF provide clear guidance for municipal refinement of the NHS; NHS and agricultural land base mapping be published together on the same viewer; The Province develop, in consultation with municipalities and conservation authorities, a restoration and enhancement strategy to help achieve the objectives of the NHS. Agricultural System Below is a summary listing from Attachment 2 of TRCA’s recommendations for OMAFRA’s consideration on the draft Agricultural System. TRCA recommends that: The Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve not be included in the Prime Agricultural Area; 451 Urban agriculture components be included in the agri-food network and added to Agricultural System portal; OMAFRA ensure that Agricultural System portal contains updated and practical information for a broad range of users, including urban agriculture; The regional Natural Heritage System for the GGH be included in the Agricultural System portal. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA staff is reviewing the proposed mapping as part of existing budgets. No additional funding is required for this review. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Incorporate feedback from the Authority meeting on September 22, 2017 into the submission to the EBR by the deadline of October 4, 2017; Continue to attend provincial training sessions on the proposed mapping and associated technical reports and guidance materials; Continue to work with TRCA’s municipal partners, Conservation Ontario and the Province in understanding the implications of the proposed mapping, associated policies as they pertain to the operation of TRCA programs and delivery of services; Coordinate internal consultations with senior management, planning and technical staff to assess the implications of the proposed mapping and associated policies (ongoing). Report prepared by: Frances Woo, extension 5364 Emails: frances.woo@trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett@trca.on.ca Date: September 22, 2017 Attachments: 2 452 Attachment 1 October 4, 2017 By email Ala Boyd Manager – Natural Heritage Section Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Policy Division Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch 300 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8M5 Re: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments in response to the criteria, methods, and mapping of the proposed regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (EBR # 013-1014). Dear Ms. Boyd: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the criteria, methods, and mapping of the proposed regional Natural Heritage System (NHS) for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is a local watershed management agency with a variety of responsibilities related to natural heritage protection, management and restoration. TRCA protects and manages approximately 18,000 hectares of conservation land and assists its 18 member municipalities in fulfilling their responsibilities associated with natural heritage, water resources and natural hazard management under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. TRCA has an interest in the development of the regional NHS primarily given our roles as a service provider to municipalities supporting their implementation of provincial policy, as a resource management agency and regulator in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act, and as a major landowner in the Greater Toronto Area. In 2015 and 2016, TRCA provided comments and recommendations to the Province as part of the Coordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and Niagara Escarpment Plan. We are pleased that many of our comments are reflected in the updated plans and recognize the importance of establishing the regional NHS in a timely manner to facilitate the implementation of the new Growth Plan policies. TRCA has reviewed both the summary document and technical report and refer to both in the comments below. The document being referred to in each instance will be specified. Note that these comments should be read in conjunction with TRCA’s comments on the draft Agricultural System (EBR # 013-0968). General Comments Overall, TRCA supports the intent of identifying a regional NHS and appreciates that MNRF has clearly outlined the principles, criteria, and methods used to develop the proposed regional NHS for the GGH. The decision to use a transparent, repeatable methodology to identify and create core areas and linkages and to fill in gaps and holes is important. We also appreciate the 453 2 decision to accept NHS information from municipalities and conservation authorities (CAs) as part of this consultation and anticipate that the Province will use it to refine the proposed NHS. It is helpful to be able to concurrently review and comment on the draft Natural Heritage System and Agricultural System in recognition of the overlap between the two systems. It appears that MNRF and OMAFRA have taken different approaches, with the former relying predominantly on provincial data and allowing for municipal refinements only for precision, and the latter drawing from existing OP mapping and providing greater flexibility for municipalities to refine the draft agricultural land base. TRCA would like to see the NHS approach more closely resemble the Agricultural System approach in its use of local official plan (OP) mapping and engagement with municipalities and CAs in the determination of the final NHS. Policy 4.2.1 in the Growth Plan states that, “Municipalities, partnering with conservation authorities as appropriate, will ensure that watershed planning is undertaken to support a comprehensive, integrated, and long-term approach to the protection, enhancement, or restoration of the quality and quantity of water within a watershed.” In large part, water quality and quantity and overall watershed health depend on a protected, robust NHS. A healthy NHS can filter stormwater and slow flood waters, curb erosion and absorb carbon, as well as provide buffered and connected habitats. The impacts of growth, intensification and the compounding effects of climate change are in many ways more acutely experienced in downstream settlement areas, making a protected NHS even more critical. TRCA is concerned about the implications of a regional-scale NHS, subject to Growth Plan policies, that excludes areas that are currently part of local NHSs. This is of particular concern given that, according to the revised Growth Plan, existing NHSs identified in OPs will no longer be protected in accordance with the relevant OP once the regional NHS has been issued (4.2.2.4), even though a municipality “may continue to protect any other natural heritage system or identify new systems in a manner that is consistent with the PPS” (4.2.2.6b). This appears to create two “tiers” of NHSs, in which parts of the local NHS (where the regional NHS does not overlap) risk being devalued in municipal development decisions or at the Ontario Municipal Board. Even if municipalities have the opportunity, as per Growth Plan policy 4.2.2.5, to “refine provincial mapping with greater precision” through a municipal comprehensive review, this two- tier system will exist until municipalities’ OPs are updated and approved (2022 or even beyond). Furthermore, without provincial guidelines on the types and extent of “refinements” that municipalities will be able to make, it is unclear whether the municipal refinement process will be sufficient to resolve these disparities. While we appreciate that the proposed NHS is intended to operate at the regional scale, the implications of inclusion versus exclusion are substantial and can create challenges for planning authorities and supporting agencies like CAs going forward. This has significant ecological implications considering that the success of the regional-scale NHS is contingent on local-scale municipal NHSs. Using the recently published digital NHS map, TRCA has been able to identify the areas within our jurisdiction that have been proposed for inclusion in the GGH NHS. Many of these appear to be refinements to the Greenbelt NHS within the whitebelt. Within this area, the proposed additions exclude parts of the NHS identified through TRCA’s Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, which many of our partner municipalities use to delineate and periodically refine the NHS in their OPs. CAs and municipalities should be consulted on these site-specific areas in order to more accurately capture and map the natural features present. For example, the portion of the proposed regional NHS located southwest of Elgin Mills Road and the 9th line in Markham does not extend to cover the wetland to the north. 454 3 Responses to Consultation Questions 1. Generally, do you agree with the principles? Are there other key principles? The principles are helpful in guiding the technical process for developing the NHS. However, they lack the direction required to ensure the development of the NHS is based on sound ecological principles. The document and process would benefit from having a set of ecological guiding principles in addition to the more process-based ones so that they are embedded in the mapping process and can facilitate the evaluation of NHS outcomes in the future. If ecological principles are established, the NHS development methodology should be reviewed and/or revised to ensure it conforms with these principles. Please see for reference the attached Principles for Terrestrial Natural Heritage Conservation and Restoration developed by the South- Central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group in 2002, which relate to scale, amount and distribution of cover, size, shape, matrix, connectivity, and diversity/quality. For example, if distribution is a key principle, core areas smaller than 100ha would be needed in order to capture more areas with high fragmentation and low cover in the NHS so that services are more equitably distributed across the region. Edits are proposed to the following guiding principles on p. 4 of the summary document in order to better account for existing local NHS mapping and regional variations in landscape context: Scale of the regional system is to focus on identifying larger core areas and broader linkages within a regional landscape context: Consider rewording to “Larger core areas and broader linkages are preferred in a regional natural heritage system, but the scale and context of the landscape is to be considered when identifying core area and linkage size criteria.” While large habitat patches are generally better for biodiversity conservation, the appropriate minimum size varies depending on the landscape context, NHS objectives, and even species requirements. By keeping this guiding principle broad it allows the NHS development process to identify appropriate size – for example, 500ha or 100ha or finer, if needed. Connection of the NHS mapping to existing regional mapping in adjacent areas is to be made as much as reasonably possible (i.e., connect to other natural heritage systems in adjacent planning areas): Consider rewording to “Connection of the NHS mapping to existing regional and local jurisdictions’ NHS mapping in adjacent areas is to be made as much as reasonably possible (i.e., connect to other natural heritage systems in adjacent planning areas)”. Having regard for and linking the proposed NHS maps to the existing NHS from other jurisdictions (municipal and CAs included) is important for all of the NHS to be functional across the broader landscape. The criteria and methods are to have potential for application in another similar geography (i.e., could potentially be applied to other areas of southern Ontario): Consider rewording to “The framework, criteria, and methods are to have potential for application in another similar geographical scale and context as well as allow for adaptation if in a different geographical scale and context”. This will allow for the areas where the criteria thresholds are not acceptable to use what is most appropriate in their context without weakening the objectives and outcomes of the NHS. 2. Do you agree with the criteria for the composition and size of core areas and linkages? TRCA supports the application of smaller minimum core area sizes to reflect different fragmentation and natural cover conditions in different parts of the GGH. It is important to apply finer thresholds for areas with low natural cover, as smaller natural features would otherwise be 455 4 excluded from the NHS. TRCA, which works within a highly urbanized area, is acutely aware of the need to account for regional variability in NHS planning and to recognize the importance of such systems in more developed contexts. We are concerned that the alternative 100ha minimum may not be sufficient to address the already low levels of natural cover within certain areas in the GGH outside of settlement areas and the Greenbelt (e.g. in the whitebelt). While it is a good start, this threshold does a disservice to watersheds dominated by still smaller – but important – existing natural areas by excluding them from provincial-level protections. For example, a recent University of Waterloo study1 highlighted the disproportionately large role that smaller wetlands play in landscape nutrient processing and the need to value and protect these smaller features. In addition, there are biodiversity groups that benefit from smaller habitat areas, as illustrated on pages 9 and 14 of the technical report, that have been excluded through application of the proposed criteria. While the technical report states that “The objectives of the regional Natural Heritage System are not tailored to a particular species or species group, but are intended more generally to maintain and restore biodiversity and ecological functions over the long term”, by aiming only for larger areas the needs of biodiversity groups with smaller patch areas – often local species in and around settlement areas that are of local conservation concern – could be undermined, especially in areas where they may be the dominant groups. As with core area size, linkage sizes also need to vary depending on the species, scale and context of the study area. TRCA recommends that the Province re-evaluate size criteria for core areas and linkages, based on a finer analysis of the region and data provided by CAs and municipalities, which more fully reflect the context of the area to which the criteria are applied. Core area and linkage thresholds should be determined according to the needs of the majority of species, scale, and landscape context of the targeted region at a finer scale. With regard to the composition of core areas and linkages, while valleylands of major stream systems were included in the proposed NHS, TRCA would like to see all valley and stream corridors included in the NHS. Valley and stream corridors, which support the interactions between terrestrial and aquatic systems, form the “backbone” of the NHS of a watershed, and within TRCA’s jurisdiction are considered both core areas and linkages. Local NHSs are critical to the health of watersheds, which in turn is key to the health of the regional NHS. 3. Do you agree that there should be consideration of smaller core areas to acknowledge highly fragmented areas with limited natural cover? Yes – see response to Question 2. 4. Do you agree with the automated approach to consistently apply the criteria across the landscape? We understand the approach described in the technical report to be a consistent, repeatable approach but not necessarily an automated one, as it employs a number of manual steps and expert judgment. We think this is appropriate. The consistent application of criteria is supported, as long as the criteria are context- and scale-specific given the wide variability in the amount and distribution of natural cover across the GGH as well as the needs of the inhabiting species. 1 Cheng, F. Y., and N. B. Basu (2017), Biogeochemical hotspots: Role of small water bodies in landscape nutrient processing, Water Resour. Res., 53, 5038–5056, doi:10.1002/2016WR020102. 456 5 5. Do you have other suggestions for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to consider? Provide Additional Context Both the technical report and summary document would benefit from additional context and content for the development of the regional NHS and its associated policies as it relates to local NHSs. To this end, the Introduction, Purpose or Scope section(s) of the documents could include: A clearly stated goal and objectives for the regional NHS, including what it contains and how it is designed. This could be drawn from the definition of NHS in the Growth Plan. Objectives could include, but are not limited to, the enhancement of ecosystem services, biodiversity protection and recovery, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Recognition of the local NHS identification and protection that municipalities and CAs have been undertaking since the early 2000s and continue to do. The regional NHS may not identify all natural features or potential restoration areas important at the local scale, but the overall long term functionality of the regional NHS and equitable distribution of ecosystem functions and services are dependent on the identification and protection of local NHSs. The impacts of urbanization and the compounding effects of climate change are in many ways more acutely experienced in urban settlement areas, making a protected NHS that much more important in these areas. Recognition that, although the GGH NHS does not extend into settlement areas, the identification and protection of natural features in settlement areas is still important. Clarification on how the proposed NHS relates to other provincial NHS development initiatives such as Marxan, which was developed over a number of years and has been used (and funded) by a number of municipalities within the GGH. Recognition that ecosystem restoration, and identification of areas for restoration, is an important part of the regional NHS and that municipalities and CAs are to identify restoration opportunities. Recognition of green infrastructure’s concurrent role in achieving some of the same objectives as the regional NHS, including supporting ecosystem functions. This would complement the references to green infrastructure in the updated Growth Plan. Recognition of current and future impacts of climate change and the relationship between the NHS, ecosystem services, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and community resilience needs. Key ecological guiding principles for the development of the NHS (see response to Question 1 above). Account for local NHSs As stated above, TRCA would like to see local (municipal and CA) NHSs be better acknowledged in the development of the GGH NHS. Substantial public resources have been expended to develop and defend these local NHSs. TRCA has learned that the Province is accepting mapping data for consideration for inclusion in the regional NHS, and is pleased to include our GIS data with this submission for your consideration. Incorporating municipal and watershed NHSs would mitigate the “two-tier” problem mentioned earlier and be more consistent with the process OMAFRA has used to map the agricultural land base of the GGH Agricultural System, which relied heavily on existing designations in approved OPs. We would encourage the Province to consider the information and data provided by all CAs. Provide guidance for municipal refinement and implementation Provincial guidance and oversight are needed for municipal refinement and consistent 457 6 incorporation of the regional NHS into OPs. This would address Recommendation 43 in the Advisory Panel Report for the Coordinated Review, which calls for the provision of guidelines on mapping NHSs and connections between regional- and local-scale systems. Any criteria for municipal refinement should be made publicly available. MNRF may wish to consider establishing a process for municipal conformity/refinement for the NHS similar to that of OMAFRA’s for the Agricultural System. Publish NHS and agricultural land base mapping together Table 8 in the technical report states that 28% of prime agricultural areas in the GGH have been captured within the proposed NHS. This suggests significant potential for competing uses but also for determining areas for restoration. However, as the mapping for these two systems has been provided on different map viewers, it is currently impossible to systematically identify the areas of overlap and plan for agricultural and ecological functions in these areas. Once the maps for the NHS and agricultural land base are established following this consultation, the Province should not only provide public access to associated GIS data, but make these mapping layers available to view on the same online portal so that municipalities, planning authorities, and landowners are better able to plan within these areas. Develop a restoration and enhancement strategy The establishment of the regional NHS requires an accompanying enhancement strategy to both restore NHS areas to natural cover and expand the overall size of the NHS in the long term. In the technical report, public lands and linkages are identified as areas for restoration, but a more comprehensive strategy is needed that includes the opportunity to identify both areas for restoration and the local jurisdictions that should focus on restoration. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual could be updated to better reflect these needs and provide guidance on how NHSs should be developed to account for restoration. An NHS enhancement strategy would help achieve Recommendation 44 in the Advisory Panel Report for the Coordinated Review. Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments on this important initiative. Should you have any questions, require clarification, or would like to meet to discuss any of the comments, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Carolyn Woodland, OALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Enclosure 458 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION SOUTH-CENTRAL ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES NATURAL HERITAGE DISCUSSION GROUP November 2002 With so many organizations and governments of all levels defining and evaluating natural heritage systems using a diversity of approaches there is a real need to identify basic principles related to conservation biology and landscape ecology that are common to all programs to act as a basis for comparison and to demonstrate compatibility. The following is an attempt to describe these principles under basic issue-related categories. The first two are strategic considerations, while the others are more specific to system design and habitat patch qualities. These are not necessarily presented in order of importance, rather it should be recognized that there is some overlap between principles, and the interrelation between them is important. Following each principle is an explanation of why it is relevant. 1. Approach A comprehensive approach to natural heritage addresses ecosystem form and function based on a landscape perspective. There is a difference between maintaining the health of a defined terrestrial natural heritage system occupying a portion of the landscape, and maintaining the health of the landscape itself. If terrestrial natural heritage conservation is to be integrated with aquatic ecosystems and geophysical elements such as hydrology and soils, then the condition of the entire landscape, including human land use, must be considered. Land-water interactions are especially important in the protection of headwaters. Ecological and evolutionary processes function at a landscape scale and therefore must be addressed within a landscape context. Ecosystems are not limited by the boundaries of individual habitat patches; they interact with each other and the surrounding landscape. The movements of wildlife such as migratory birds elevate this function to a global scale. There is a danger in assessing patches only at the site scale, which can lead to cumulative loss. A systems approach must be used in determining their relative importance within a landscape and the interrelationship of all the principles in this document need to be considered. Furthermore, natural disturbance patterns such as erosion or fire are necessary for the continuance of some ecosystem types. Because ecological systems and processes are so complex and damage cannot always be repaired, the Precautionary Principle should apply when defining, managing, and defending the natural heritage system. Demographic trends and their potential impacts should be considered in the design of the system, and adaptive management should be applied to ensure long-term ecological health. Actions that have the potential to negatively impact the natural heritage system should be avoided unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no serious ecological harm. Protection of existing features and expansion of the natural heritage system are generally better than mitigative action. 459 2. Scale A natural heritage system that is defined and evaluated at a small local scale should be compatible with a system defined at the larger regional or provincial scale. To the greatest degree possible it should also be compatible with neighbouring natural heritage systems across local jurisdictional borders. Consideration of temporal scale is also important. For example, although some decisions may be made based on short-term targets, these may be increments towards a larger vision that can only be fulfilled over the longer term. We should also recognize the evolving nature of ecosystems, and make provision for the continuation of successional processes. 3. Cover/Distribution More natural cover is better. The more natural cover on the landscape, the greater the ecological health. Natural cover improves soils, retains and filters water, improves air quality and regulates climate. It also promotes biodiversity by allowing for greater representation of genes, community types and species, as well as natural disturbance cycles. Even distribution of this natural cover ensures that these functions occur across the landscape. 4. Size In general, large habitat patches are better for biodiversity conservation. This is because they provide more resources to support more species and more individuals of those species, promoting population viability and internalizing connectivity and the values which corridors are designed to provide. They also support more vegetation community types and more age classes of vegetation. They provide a better buffer against negative external impacts, and greater opportunities for natural disturbance cycles to occur. In short, size is perhaps the most important patch measure and overriding principle because the larger the size, the less important the other landscape issues become (i.e. a single patch covering the entire landscape would make consideration of distribution, shape, connectivity, and surrounding land use irrelevant). Another issue is minimum size of a patch to be considered for evaluation, for part of a defined natural heritage system, or to be considered functionally significant. Decisions about minimum size are often based on the habitat type in question, and the total cover and distribution of natural habitat within the study area. 5. Shape For forest habitat in a fragmented landscape compact patch shapes are generally better than convoluted shapes. This is particularly the case in uplands as opposed to riparian habitats that may naturally be thin and convoluted. Many forest species of concern - in particular birds - are known as ”forest interior“ species because they require the dark, cool habitat that can only be found in deep forest. Forest interior is also considered to be that area of the patch that is beyond most negative edge effects, that is from negative external influences. According to literature, these edge effects penetrate at least 100 metres into a forest, and up to over 400 metres. Typically, forest interior is mapped as the area that is more than 100 metres from the edge. Interior is a function of both size and shape of the patch. The shape with the least 460 amount of edge is a perfect circle. Long, slender, convoluted or perforated patches have the highest amount of edge. Shape of patches may become less important with increasing size. There may be value in defining interior, or ”core“ area for non-forest habitats, or combinations of habitats, although the literature to support this seems to be limited, with the exception of defining core areas in large reserves that are off limits to human use. 6. Matrix Size and shape many determine the degree to which a patch is exposed to negative external influences, but what ultimately affects the quality of the habitat is the specific types of influences resulting from the character of the surrounding landscape, known as the matrix. Human land uses such as agriculture and urbanization have different degrees of impact, while other nearby habitat patches may have a positive effect by providing additional resources for species that can move between the patches and by providing support services such as pollination. 7. Connectivity Landscape connectivity refers to the functional relationship among habitat patches based on their spatial proximity and the movement responses of organisms. Plants need adjacent habitats to support pollination and seed dispersal. Animals must move or disperse to find suitable resources and to mate. Small populations that have become isolated in a fragmented landscape are at risk of extinction due to resource depletion or inbreeding and the associated loss of genetic vigour. Two main types of connectivity have been defined: structural connectivity refers to the physical adjacency of habitat patches, and functional connectivity refers to the ability of species to traverse the landscape between the patches. Theoretically functional connectivity must be defined differently for each species because each has a different movement capacity. However, structural connectivity, whatever its form, will not meet the needs of all species. Provision of wildlife corridors, although popular, is only one way in which connectivity can be provided. These issues illustrate the difficulty in finding one measure that suits all circumstances. Based on potential positive or negative impacts of linkages, to connect or not to connect is an important consideration. 9. Diversity/Quality Native species and vegetation communities should be a focus of conservation and restoration efforts. Species evolve together over time to create ecosystems. Non-native, or exotic species are those that have been introduced deliberately or accidentally from distant areas. Although the impacts of some species may be relatively benign, those that become invasive can have catastrophic impacts. It is therefore appropriate to focus conservation on native species and ecosystems, and this may in fact involve the control of exotic species or to maintain the conditions that favour native species. The quality or condition of natural areas is also important. For example, areas that are close to pristine are likely to be more valuable than areas that are heavily degraded. Special features such as excellent representation of biodiversity, rare species or community types, old growth, etc. are also important considerations. 461 Attachment 2 October 4, 2017 By email Helma Gerts Policy Advisor Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Policy Division Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch 1 Stone Road West, Floor 2 Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Re: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments in response to the Release of draft Agricultural System mapping and Implementation Procedures (EBR # 013-0968). Dear Ms. Gerts: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Agricultural System mapping and implementation procedures for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) protects and manages approximately 18,000 hectares of conservation land and assists its 18 member municipalities in fulfilling their responsibilities associated with natural heritage, water resources and natural hazard management under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. TRCA has an interest in the development of the GGH Agricultural System primarily given its roles as a service provider to municipalities supporting their implementation of provincial policy, as a resource management agency and regulator in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act, and as a major landowner in the Greater Toronto Area. TRCA leases some of its land to farmers and manages approximately 400 hectares in its agricultural land inventory. TRCA’s Sustainable Near-Urban Agriculture Policy (2008) permits and encourages agricultural uses on TRCA owned and managed lands, where appropriate, as a component of sustainable communities. The Policy recognizes that agricultural land is a vital resource that must be conserved and that progressive environmental stewardship in the agricultural sector and the production of local food for the Toronto region are requirements for TRCA and its partners to collectively realize The Living City vision. In 2015 and 2016, TRCA provided comments and recommendations to the Province as part of the Coordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and Niagara Escarpment Plan. We are pleased that many of our comments are reflected in the updated plans and recognize the importance of establishing the GGH Agricultural System in a timely manner to facilitate the implementation of the new policies. Based on our review of the draft Implementation Procedures, Agricultural Land Base map, and Agricultural System portal released for consultation, TRCA would like to provide the following comments. Note that these comments should be read in conjunction with TRCA’s comments on the proposed regional Natural Heritage System (EBR # 013-1014). Remove the Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve from Prime Agricultural Area The Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve in Richmond Hill has been included as a prime agricultural area in the draft agricultural land base. Restoration has been completed for a number of years now on the former agricultural lands owned by the Province and the majority of this area is no longer suited for agriculture. This restoration, including tree and shrub planting as well as wetland creation, has been successful due to the quality of the soils. The opportunity for agriculture now exists 462 only on a small portion of the lands. The remainder of the lands has significant natural and cultural heritage value and provides nature-based recreation and outdoor education opportunities. Furthermore, they are part of the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Natural Core and Linkage areas, and are not designated as agriculture in either the Richmond Hill or York Region official plan. TRCA supports York Region’s recommendation that this area should not be included in the prime agricultural area in the agricultural land base. Integrate urban agriculture components into the agri-food network It is important for the Agricultural System to recognize the role of urban agriculture in helping achieve many economic, social, and environmental objectives. Even though the agricultural land base does not extend into urban areas, urban agriculture features are an important part of, and should be included in, the agri-food network. Specifically, urban lands where agricultural activity is occurring (e.g. open space and parks used for community gardens) or that have been made available for agriculture to occur should be mapped in the Agricultural System portal and recognized in the Implementation Procedures. Mapping these urban agricultural opportunities would facilitate planning for urban agricultural activities and demonstrate their functional and economic connections with the broader regional Agricultural System. It could also help broaden the uses of the portal, for example to provide opportunities for potential new farmers without rural connections or farming backgrounds to engage in farming within or near cities. Ensure information on the Agricultural System portal is updated and practical The Agricultural System portal is a useful tool for informing agricultural impact assessments and economic development and land use planning. It can also enhance agricultural viability by providing pertinent information for farmers. To that end, OMAFRA could consider including additional information on some agri-food network components that would be helpful to potential users. For example, information regarding the size of processing facilities would enable smaller-scale farmers to easily identify facilities they can use. In addition, clarification on how and when updates to the mapping layers in the portal will be made – for example, to reflect crop layers that may change yearly – would be helpful. Include the regional Natural Heritage System in the Agricultural System portal The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s technical report for the development of the regional Natural Heritage System (NHS) for the GGH indicates that the proposed NHS falls on 28% of the region’s prime agricultural areas. However, as the mapping for these two systems has been provided on different map viewers, it is currently impossible to systematically identify these areas and plan for agricultural and ecological functions in these areas. Once the maps for the NHS and agricultural land base are established following this consultation, the Province should not only provide public access to associated GIS data, but make these mapping layers available to view on the same online portal so that municipalities, planning authorities, and landowners are better able to plan within these areas. Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments on this important initiative. Should you have any questions, require clarification, or would like to meet to discuss any of the comments, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Carolyn Woodland, OALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 463 RES.#A163/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Highland Creek Watershed Middlepark Estates Inc., CFN 55755. Acquisition of property located east of Warden Avenue and south of Finch Avenue, municipally known as 1251 Bridletowne Circle, Scarborough, in the City of Toronto, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Highland Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B75/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 0.1185 hectares (0.2928 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Warden Avenue and south of Finch Avenue, said land being Part of Lot 32, Concession 3 (Geographical Township of Scarborough), designated as Parts 5, 6 and 8 on Registered Plan 66R-27400, municipally known as 1251 Bridletowne Circle, Scarborough in the City of Toronto, be purchased from Middlepark Estates Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A164/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed Futama Investment Corporation, CFN 58394. Acquisition of property located south of Teston Road and west of Bathurst Street, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed. (Executive Res.#B76/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Teston Road and west of Bathurst Street, said land being Part of Block 89, Registered Plan 65M- 3924 and Part of Block 112, Registered Plan 65M- 3893 designated as Block 31 on draft M-Plan, prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Ltd. OLS, Job No: 15-181-01C in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Futama Investment Corporation; 464 THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A165/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Acquisition for the Riverhead Drive Erosion Control Project, Humber River Watershed 47, 49, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67 and 69 Riverhead Drive and 1 Katrine Road, City of Toronto, CFN 51072. Acquisition of property located at 47, 49, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, and 69 Riverhead Drive and 1 Katrine Road, in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B77/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 0.015 hectares (0.036 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 47 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 567, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 5 and 6 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-R-Lots566&567 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 47 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 567, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 7 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-R-Lots566&567, City of Toronto, be purchased from Carmela Acri; THAT 0.017 hectares (0.042 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 49 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 566, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 1 and 2 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-R-Lots566&567 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 49 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 566, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 3 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-R-Lots566&567, City of Toronto, be purchased from Ping Xiong and Linyang Pan; 465 THAT 0.016 hectares (0.040 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 53 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 564, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 39 and 40 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 53 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 564, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 38 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from Rose Jevons; THAT 0.018 hectares (0.045 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 55 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 563, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 35 and 36 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 55 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 563, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 34 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from Antonio Naccarato; THAT 0.016 hectares (0.039 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 57 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 562, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 31 and 32 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 57 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 562, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 30 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, at the rear of 57 Riverhead Drive, City of Toronto, be purchased from Dale Douglas; THAT 0.011 hectares (0.030 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear 59 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 561, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 27 and 28 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 59 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 561, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 26 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from William MacDonald; THAT 0.006 hectares (0.016 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear 61 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 560, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 23 and 24 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 61 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 560, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 22 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from Shirley Wilson; THAT 0.006 hectares (0.016 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 63 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 559, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 19 and 20 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 63 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 559, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 18 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from Cynthia Wan; 466 THAT 0.005 hectares (0.013 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 65 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 558, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 15 and 16 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 65 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 558, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 14 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from Timothy Kallem and Elaine Turner; THAT 0.007 hectares (0.017 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 67 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 557, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 11 and 12 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.002 hectares (0.005 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 67 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 557, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 10 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from Brian Attwood & Colleen Hutchinson; THAT 0.008 hectares (0.020 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear 69 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 556, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 7 and 8 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.003 hectares (0.006 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 69 Riverhead Drive, said land being Part of Lot 556, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 6 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from Susan Miller; THAT 0.014 hectares (0.035 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at the rear of 1 Katrine Road, said lands being Part of Lot 555, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Parts 3 and 4 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3 and a permanent easement of 0.004 hectares (0.009 acres), more or less, located at the rear of 1 Katrine Road, said lands being Part of Lot 555, Registered Plan M-670, designated as Part 2 on draft R-Plan by IBW Surveyors, file name: 1-0331-Rv3, City of Toronto, be purchased from Krassen Daskalov and Violina Daskalova; THAT the purchase price for each of the parcels of land and permanent easements at 47, 49, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, and 69 Riverhead Drive and 1 Katrine Road be each $2.00 in addition to each vendor’s reasonable legal costs, and survey if required, be paid by TRCA; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the lands at 47, 49, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, and 69 Riverhead Drive and 1 Katrine Road free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ 467 RES.#A166/17 - NAMING OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ASSET Approval to name a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority property in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, as The Douglas J. Reddington Conservation Reserve. (Executive Res.#B78/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT 10.21 hectares (25.24 acres) of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned land in the Town of Caledon, as illustrated in Attachment 1, be officially named "The Douglas J. Reddington Conservation Reserve"; THAT the Town of Caledon be so advised; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to erect a sign designating the property as The Douglas J. Reddington Conservation Reserve. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A167/17 - TORONTO WILDLIFE CENTRE Fundraising, Governance and Ownership. Update on the proposal by Toronto Wildlife Centre to build and operate a wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre in the Rouge National Urban Park. (Executive Res.#B81/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT staff report back to the Executive Committee at a future date on municipal funding support for the Toronto Wildlife Centre’s proposal and lease for a new wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education centre in the Rouge National Urban. CARRIED ______________________________ Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A168/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT Section II items 10.1.1 – 10.1.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #6/17, held on August 11, 2017, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 10.1.1 – 10.1.4, Inclusive REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY- OWNED LAND (Executive Res.#B68/17) 468 EASTERN AND BROADVIEW FLOOD PROTECTION DUE DILIGENCE AND MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL (Executive Res.#B69/17) STEP SMART ENERGY NETWORK CONSULTING (Executive Res.#B70/17) ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REFORM (BILL 139) (Executive Res.#B71/17) ______________________________ RES.#A169/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT Section II item 11.2.1 – Don Valley Drive and Hillside Drive Slope Stability Analysis and Erosion Risk assessment, City of Toronto, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/17, held on September 8, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 469 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A170/17 - HUMBER ARBORETUM AND CENTRE FOR URBAN ECOLOGY 2016/2017 Annual Report and 2017/2018 Business Plan. Receipt of Humber Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology 2016/2017 Annual Report and 2017/2018 Business Plan. Moved by: Brenda Hogg Seconded by: Jennifer Innis WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), along with the City of Toronto and Humber College, is a founding partner of the Humber Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff report on Humber Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Established in 1977 through a partnership between Humber College, the City of Toronto and TRCA, the Humber Arboretum comprises 105 hectares of botanical gardens, natural heritage areas and learning spaces. The Humber Arboretum’s mission is to establish and maintain living plant collections, demonstrate correct horticultural and arboricultural techniques, conserve and restore natural areas and wildlife, facilitate research and education, and provide a welcoming space for people to gather. Opened in 2007 and built to replace the previous Nature Centre, the Centre for Urban Ecology at Humber Arboretum is a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Gold Certified learning and community engagement hub that complements the botanical and ecological features of the site. With an annual attendance of over 12,000 visitors, both the Centre for Urban Ecology and Humber Arboretum provide an important educational resource for Humber College students and faculty, along with school groups from local school boards. Additionally, the Centre for Urban Ecology provides a venue for special events, summer camps, meetings and other functions that support the ongoing operations of the Arboretum. RATIONALE 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of Humber College, along with the 40th anniversary of the development of Humber Arboretum. Through a unique tripartite partnership, Humber College, City of Toronto and TRCA provide operational support and leadership to ensure that the Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology achieve the shared strategic objectives of the partner organizations. To recognize these auspicious anniversaries, the unique partnership governing the Arboretum, and the special role that the Arboretum plays in both the Humber College community and the broader Toronto region, enclosed are the 2016/2017 Humber Arboretum Annual Report and the 2017/2018 Humber Arboretum Business Plan which lays out the interconnected priorities of the partner organizations. For Information contact: Darryl Gray, extension 416-791-0327 Emails: dgray@trca.on.ca Date: August 11, 2017 ______________________________ 470 RES.#A171/17 - PUBLIC RECORD Premier Parks, LLC, Authority Resolution #A74/16. Resolution recommending the update on lease negotiations with Premier Parks, LLC regarding upgrades and revitalization of the water park at Claireville Conservation Area, become a public record. Moved by: Brenda Hogg Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT the following Resolution #A74/16 approved at Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, be received and become part of the public record: WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) entered into a consolidated lease dated May 1, 2011 with WWK Recreation Inc. (WWK) for the operation of a water park at the Claireville Conservation Area; AND WHEREAS WWK has advised that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Premier Parks, LLC (Premier) regarding the purchase of its assets and the operation of the water park; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to terminate the existing lease for the water park at Claireville Conservation Area and to enter into a new lease with Premier or its nominee in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT approval be granted to terminate the existing lease and to enter into a new lease with Premier or its nominee subject to the following terms: (a) that the term of new lease be 40 years with the option to extend the lease should TRCA decide to continue a water park operation at the end of the 40 years; (b) that the rent be 6% of gross revenues with a minimum guaranteed rent payable in 2017 of $375,000; (c) that the water park be allowed to close for the 2016 season and to reopen in 2017; (d) that TRCA waive the 2015 and 2016 basic and percentage rent under the existing lease on the guarantee from Premier or its nominee that this amount will be recovered by TRCA in the first six years of operation; (e) that terms, conditions and rent of the new lease and termination of the existing lease be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor; (f) that the lease be subject to any necessary Planning Act approvals; THAT the lease be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act; 471 THAT authorized TRCA signing officers be directed to seek the necessary approvals, sign and execute the new lease, any agreements or any other documents and to take any action needed to implement and manage the lease agreement and terminate the existing lease; AND FURTHER THAT Resolution #47/15 approved in camera at Authority meeting #3/15 held on March 27, 2015 be rescinded. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/15, held on March 27, 2015, Resolution #A47/15 was approved in camera as it pertains to on-going property negotiations. Subsequently this resolution was superseded by Resolution #A74/16 at Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, as noted above. Confidential minutes were retained as a record of this item at the meeting. As a matter of policy, TRCA staff reports back on in camera items when they can become public so a record of the resolution appears in public minutes. In 2016 staff negotiated a new lease with Premier Parks for the Claireville water park which came into effect July 19, 2016. Premier Parks set an aggressive timetable to refurbish the water park and open for the 2017 season. Over $28 million was invested in major renovations to the water park including the construction of five new water rides, the refurbishment of nine existing rides, the refurbishment of all the buildings on site and landscape improvements. It was challenging obtaining all the necessary permits and approvals in a timely fashion, undertaking the construction during the winter months and a wet spring, and still be open for the 2017 season. The water park officially opened its doors July 1, 2017 under the name Wet’n’Wild Toronto. The later start to the season and the cool and wet summer appears to have been factors in less than projected attendance for the Park. On a positive note, the lower than expected attendance has allowed the Park to review its operation, to determine where it needs to improve in its services and amenities to provide a better experience to its patrons in the future. Staff has had a good working relationship with Premier Parks to date and rent payments are being made as per the requirements of the lease, with no delays. Report prepared by: Lori Colussi, extension 5303 Emails: lcolussi@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: mfenning@trca.on.ca Date: September 5, 2017 ______________________________ Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A172/17 - SECTION IV – ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jennifer Innis 472 THAT Section IV item 10.2 – Section IV - Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #6/17, held on August 11, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A173/17 - SECTION IV – ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT Section IV item 11.3 – Section IV - Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/17, held on September 8, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:45 a.m., on Friday, September 22, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer 473 Authority Meeting #8/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, October 27, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member David Barrow Member Ron Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Jennifer Drake Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Jennifer Innis Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Jack Ballinger Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Michael Ford Member Brenda Hogg Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Linda Pabst Member RES.#A174/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: David Barrow THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/17, held on September 22, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 474 DELEGATIONS 4.1 A delegation by Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage Committee, in regard to item 8.2 – Humber River Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran Model Update. RES.#A175/17 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT above-noted delegation 4.1 be heard and received. CARRIED ______________________________ PRESENTATIONS 5.1 A presentation by Marc Desjardins, Management Biologist, Lake Ontario Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, in regard to item 7.1 - Duffins Creek Resistance Board Weir. RES.#A176/17 - PRESENTATION Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Paul Ainslie THAT above-noted presentation 5.1 be received. CARRIED __________________________________ 475 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A177/17 - DUFFINS CREEK RESISTANCE BOARD WEIR Update on the progress of the Duffins Creek Resistance Board Weir, which was a milestone in the overall Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program, a partnership with TRCA, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, local environmental non-governmental organizations and residents. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Paul Ainslie WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) received funding from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission of $197,862 as part of ongoing activities supporting the reintroduction of native Atlantic salmon to Duffins Creek through the construction and operation of a fish weir; AND WHEREAS the project was successfully completed in 2017 to the satisfaction of the funding agencies; THERFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with the Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program on activities in Duffins Creek and the Humber River; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to work with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to measure the success of efforts to re-establish a self-sustaining population of Atlantic salmon in Duffins Creek. CARRIED BACKGROUND Since 2006, MNRF has collaborated with TRCA, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), and 50 other partners to stock three genetic strains of Atlantic salmon in Duffins Creek. The goal of the stocking program is to re-establish a self-sustaining population of this native species, which was extirpated over 100 years ago due to loss of stream habitat, overfishing and other factors caused by human activity. Stocking Atlantic salmon in Duffins Creek and other tributaries to Lake Ontario, and measuring the success of the stocked fish, are among the many activities carried out by the “Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program” (LOASRP) which is a partnership between TRCA, MRNF, the Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Credit Valley Conservation, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, Conservation Halton, OFAH, Trout Unlimited Canada, as well as academics and other individuals. TRCA support for the LOASRP includes: Participation on the LOASRP Science, Habitat and Steering Committees; Assisting MNRF and OFAH with annual spring and fall fish stocking in Duffins Creek; Assisting MNRF and OFAH with fish surveys to determine survivorship of stocked eggs, fry and fingerlings; Help in securing a grant to purchase and operate the resistance board weir in Duffins Creek. 476 In 2011, the LOASRP partners wanted to measure the success of years of stocking in Duffins Creek. At the time, it was illegal to fish for Atlantic salmon, therefore no anecdotal information was available from local anglers. A scientific method of measuring the numbers of Atlantic salmon in Duffins Creek was deemed necessary, and the resistance board weir was considered to be the preferred option for capturing fish live for assessment and subsequent release. This particular weir was a proprietary technology of Cramer Fish Sciences, from California, USA, who were retained by MNRF and TRCA to custom build a weir specifically for Duffins Creek. Significant staff time and resources were invested in the design, construction, transport of the weir from California to Ontario, and for installation in Duffins Creek south of Kingston Road in Ajax. The weir was operated by TRCA staff with assistance from MNRF in 2013, 2014 and 2015. TRCA’s expertise and experience with local streams and operating this particular weir enabled further customization of the equipment by TRCA technicians to suit Duffins Creek’s runoff regime and migrating fish populations. Each year, the equipment was installed in the spring and removed in the fall for storage over the winter. Atlantic salmon have a unique life history, they spawn many times over their life span, spending their adult life in Lake Ontario where they feed until their seasonal migration to Duffins Creek for a few weeks before spawning in select spawning sites. Without knowing exactly when Atlantics would return to Duffins Creek to spawn, staff had to experiment and vary the timing of weir operation in order to find salmon present. Operation of the weir was adjusted to collect migrating fish, or allow them to safely pass through without capture at times when TRCA crews were unavailable to process captured fish. Of the fish captured in the weir, the non-salmonid species were counted and released immediately, and the Atlantic salmon were closely assessed. Assessment included measuring fish and obtaining a small tissue sample (for strain and stocked life-stage verification) before the salmon were released upstream of the weir to continue their migration. Several other species of trout and salmon are found in Duffins Creek and were enumerated at the weir, however due to the widespread availability of current biological information on these stocks in the Lake Ontario basin, TRCA field crews were instructed to take less detailed measurements of these other salmonid species (e.g., Chinook salmon, brown trout, rainbow trout). Mortality rates due to weir operation ranged from 11% in the first year, mainly due to mechanical issues with the weir equipment during the first year of operation and stress from live capture, to 5% in subsequent years as a result of modifications to trap and weir panel design and modified daily operational procedures. Losses in the last two years of operation were deemed to be acceptable and comparable to rates of fish lost to angling and conventional capture methods. Of the 3,408 fish captured in the weir over three years, 21 Atlantic salmon were captured. Parentage was confirmed (strain and life-stage stocked) for 10 adult Atlantic salmon. LaHave and Sebago strain fish were represented equally in the catch while no Lac St. Jean fish were identified. The absence of the Quebec strain is not surprising as it was not reared to full production levels until 2013 and was subsequently not stocked in sufficient numbers. Of note were two adult Atlantic salmon that reflect an ambiguous ancestry. These fish match equally well to both the LaHave and Sebago lineage. This combination is unlikely to be a result of hatchery error and more likely reflects the wild pairing of Lahave and Sebago strain hatchery reared adults. Finally, fish stocked as spring fingerling (the smallest life-stage stocked, at four to five months of age) comprised the majority of the fish with confirmed parentage. Despite low numbers of Atlantic salmon, the weir results provided critical information on effective stocking efforts and fish health. 477 TRCA collaborated with the LOASRP to promote the program to local anglers and the public. Once the weir was fully operational in 2013, program partners including the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Deputy Minister of MNRF, and representatives of OFAH and local angling groups gathered on-site to see the weir in operation with TRCA staff assessing fish. TRCA and MRNF’s efforts to educate the local public about restoring Atlantic salmon in Duffins Creek and the weir specifically included: an interpretive sign adjacent to a public trail at the weir site, a blog on the TRCA website which was updated regularly with photos of the weir and fish, sharing via twitter, a postcard distributed to local anglers, and local news media outreach. RATIONALE Stocking of Atlantic salmon in Duffins Creek continues. However, trapping of fish proved to be intrusive and costly. Atlantic salmon migratory periods are prolonged, thus requiring a large sampling window (June to October) and their low abundance necessitated continuous monitoring to capture sufficient information. An overlap in migration timing with other more numerous species such as Chinook salmon resulted in excessive processing times. Finally, it is possible that trap-induced congestion of migrating fish, particularly Chinook salmon, at dams, fish ladders and weirs may impede Atlantic salmon migration or alter migratory behaviour, thereby confounding restoration efforts. MNRF and the LOASRP Science Committee are considering a new, less intrusive fish counting technology to collect information on migrating adult salmon. This technology incorporates infrared scanning and a high resolution camera combination to provide accurate counts across an array of stream conditions and makes it possible to identify migrants of different species. It is anticipated that the reduced processing costs and handling stress will improve program efficiencies and lower assessment costs. The new technology has the added benefit of providing opportunities for the public to view fish remotely online at http://www.riverwatcherdaily.is/frontpage.aspx?CtrID=133&A=1 where data and imagery are accessible via an innovative web based application. Anglers and the public can access real time information on the fish run and compare statistics between years and with other rivers. It is hoped that this new technology will not only enhance monitoring capabilities but also awareness of the LOASRP and support for the restoration activities. This technology is being tested in 2017 in the Ganaraska River. A second counter is planned for the Credit River in 2018. If effective, the new technology could be deployed in combination with the resistance board weir in Duffins Creek, or in other watersheds at a future date, possibly 2019 or 2020. In favour of exploring the new technology, the resistance board weir for Duffins Creek was decommissioned. In early 2017, the final report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission on the weir and its findings was accepted by the funder. Meanwhile, data collection opportunities continue. As of 2016, tributary anglers in the Ministry’s designated Zones 16 and 17, which include Duffins Creek watershed, are allowed to fish for Atlantic salmon in a newly implemented catch and release season. Allowing the angling of Atlantic salmon will enable authorities to gather anecdotal information from local anglers. TRCA and MRNF are also considering engaging local anglers in a “citizen science” capacity, whereby the Ministry would issue special scientific fish collection licenses and train the licensed anglers to assist with collecting biological data and genetic sampling. 478 FINANCIAL DETAILS In 2012, TRCA and OMNRF were successful in a joint application to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, based in Michigan, USA, for a grant of CDN $197,862 over three years to research, develop, install and operate the resistance board weir. In addition, more than $50,000 from TRCA’s annual capital project funding from the Region of Durham was used to cover staff time, mileage and operational expenses over the three seasons the weir operated. MNRF and TRCA also contributed significant in-kind staff time to plan and coordinate the weir. The 2015 season was funded by a contribution of $30,000 from the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Existing in-kind support is covered under Duffins and Carruthers watershed approved budget. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will explore opportunities to support MRNF as the Ministry decides it is appropriate to return to Duffins Creek to continue to study returning Atlantic salmon. TRCA’s findings are not considered in isolation, as there is ongoing dialogue through the LOASRP. Finally, TRCA and MRNF’s experiences with the weir offer a great opportunity for knowledge transfer to organizations managing Atlantic salmon research for other tributaries around Lake Ontario. Report prepared by: Gary Bowen, 416-271-8944; Maryam Nassar, extension 5937 Emails: gbowen@trca.on.ca; mnassar@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Bowen, 416-271-8944 Emails: gbowen@trca.on.ca Date: September 13, 2017 __________________________________ 479 RES.#A178/17 - REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE Terms of Reference. Approval of the Terms of Reference (2017-2021) for the Regional Watershed Alliance. Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Jim Tovey WHEREAS the last term of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance and Etobicoke-Mimico Coalition ended in March 2015; AND WHEREAS a new citizen governance model has been adopted as part of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Community Engagement Strategy (2017), identifying the establishment of the Regional Watershed Alliance as an immediate priority; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Regional Watershed Alliance Terms of Reference (2017-2021) as appended, be approved; THAT in accordance with the Terms of Reference, the following members of the Authority be appointed to the Regional Watershed Alliance until the end of their term with the Authority, or until their successor is appointed: a) Jack Ballinger (Durham) b)Jennifer Drake (Toronto) c)Brenda Hogg (York) d)Jennifer McKelvie (Toronto) e)Jim Tovey (Peel); THAT staff finalize the membership for the Regional Watershed Alliance in accordance with the Terms of Reference and host the first meeting in November 2017; AND FURTHER THAT progress on the activities of the Regional Watershed Alliance be reported back to the Authority on a regular basis. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/17, held on June 23, 2017, Resolution #A102/17 was approved, in part, as follows: …THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the draft 2017-2027 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Community Engagement Strategy be approved; THAT TRCA staff be directed to initiate implementation of key immediate priorities namely: the proposed Citizen Governance Model (as outlined in Attachment 2), including the terms of reference and recruitment of members for the Regional Watershed Council, Indigenous Liaison Committee, and Youth Council, online engagement platform and Community Consultation Office;… 480 Terms of Reference and Recruitment Process Draft Terms of Reference for the Regional Watershed Alliance can be found in Attachment 1. Recruitment process for the Regional Watershed Alliance members has been initiated in accordance with the Draft Terms of Reference. Correspondence has been sent to TRCA partner municipalities and other levels of government requesting nominations. The citizen recruitment process is currently underway with support from TRCA board member Councillor Jennifer Innis. Sector experts, non-government organization and special interest groups have been approached and appointments are currently underway. There are five Authority member positions identified in the Terms of Reference, representing the City of Toronto, regions of Durham, Peel and York, and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio/Town of Mono. Five members are recommended, with two representatives from the City of Toronto as Glenn Mason has transferred the Adjala-Tosorontio/Mono position to Toronto. These two municipalities have made appointees at the municipal level so are represented. The first meeting of the Regional Watershed Alliance is tentatively scheduled for November 15, 2017. FINANCIAL DETAILS Resources to support the management and work of the Regional Watershed Alliance will be made available through Watershed Strategies division from TRCA’s municipal funding partners. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE 1. Finalize Regional Watershed Alliance membership; 2. Host the first meeting of the Regional Watershed Alliance in November 2017; 3. Establish Youth Council, working groups and Indigenous Liaison Committee; 4. Provide updates on the activities of the Regional Watershed Alliance to the Authority on a regular basis. Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: sdhir@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Emails: csharma@trca.on.ca Date: October 6, 2017 Attachments: 1 481 Attachment 1 Regional Watershed Alliance Terms of Reference 1.0 BACKGROUND Since the 1980s, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) watershed and waterfront committees and task forces have been instrumental in supporting the development and implementation of TRCA’s watershed management activities. The Rouge Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy (1988), was TRCA’s first initiative supported by a citizen based "public committee.” The 1989 Greenspace Strategy committed to a program of watershed strategy development for each of TRCA's watersheds in cooperation with a public advisory committee for each watershed. Over the past two decades, the Duffins-Carruthers Watershed Resource Group, Rouge Park Alliance, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance and Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition have played a significant role in building community stewardship capacity to help TRCA deliver on priorities of watersheds and waterfront. Watershed and waterfront residents and stakeholders are also engaged through Conservation Lands stewardship committees and integrated/multi-objective or sector-based programs such as Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plans (SNAP) and Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco-Business Zone (PPG). TRCA’s 2013-2022 Strategic Plan highlights regional sustainability challenges of increasing scope and scale - such as preparing for the impacts of climate change, transitioning to a low carbon economy, managing urbanization and growth pressures. The Plan also calls for regional engagement of a broad cross-section of the population at both local and regional scales within TRCA’s jurisdiction. As such, in 2015, upon the completion of the existing terms for the Don, Humber and Etobicoke-Mimico watershed committees, the Authority directed staff to update TRCA’s community-focused engagement model in light of new trends and opportunities in civic engagement and to facilitate the implementation of the Strategic Plan. On June 23, 2017, at Authority Meeting #8/17, The Community Engagement Strategy along with a new citizen governance model was adopted. The new citizen governance model includes the Regional Watershed Alliance (RWA), and its subcommittees; Youth Council, Watershed/Waterfront Working Groups. An Indigenous Liaison Committee to the Authority has also been approved as part of the proposed governance model (Figure 1). The RWA is a formal citizen advisory board of TRCA which will report to the Authority on regular basis. Authority Direction (Resolution to be inserted after October Authority Meeting) 2.0 MISSION AND MANDATE Mission: Create healthy watersheds and waterfront that achieve The Living City Vision of sustainable communities, regional biodiversity and healthy rivers and shorelines through advocacy, knowledge sharing and collective action. 482 Mandate: Reporting to the Authority (Figure 1) and working closely with The Living City Foundation, the Regional Watershed Alliance will be established as a subcommittee to TRCA with the purpose of: Advocacy Advocacy for awareness, policy innovation and action within members’ sectors, communities and jurisdictions on regional and local environmental and sustainability issues. Advisory Input on TRCA initiatives, act as a sounding board to TRCA staff, and advise the Authority on matters of community interest. Collective Action Priority setting and collective investment in key sustainability and environmental issues for cross-jurisdictional and cross-sectoral actions. Support and leadership to the development of platform and campaigns to bring actors and stakeholders together to drive solutions through collective action and resource sharing. Reporting Reporting on collective outcomes on regional sustainability to the public, TRCA municipal partners and stakeholders. Reporting to the Authority on its work. 3.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Regional Watershed Alliance shall: 1) Adhere to the basic principles of sound ecosystem management and sustainability that recognizes the interrelationships between cultural heritage, physical characteristics, biological conditions and economic needs, and the integration of conservation, restoration, social and economic activities necessary for the health of the watersheds; 2) Forge partnerships and collaborations that build our collective capacity to advance the goals of TRCA’s Strategic Plan: Building The Living City 2013-2022, and provide a platform for collective action on cross-jurisdictional and cross-sectoral priorities; 3) Work with staff in setting regional and local priorities that help advance TRCA’s and its municipal partners objectives of sustainable communities, recommendations of TRCA’s 2017 Community Engagement Strategy, watershed plans, watershed report cards and The Living City Report Card; 4) Advocate on regional and local environmental policy issues through discussion papers, briefs and comments etc. and providing advice and comments to staff and the Authority on relevant programs and policies impacting TRCA watersheds and communities. Examples include: TRCA’s Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy; Sustainable Near-urban Agriculture Policy; watershed plans; TRCA Trails Strategy; and TRCA Greenspace Strategy; 5) Implement the recommendations of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan as they pertain to the TRCA waterfront and watersheds; 483 6) Work collaboratively with TRCA staff and partners to develop state of the watershed reports and The Living City Report Card which will address jurisdiction-wide sustainability issues; 7) Through watershed forums, events and on-line engagement, provide a forum for watershed communication by maintaining and enhancing contacts within the community. Mobilize and empower networks of local communities to build capacity and influence people’s behavior; 8) Act as a resource to TRCA, TRCA’s municipal partners and The Living City Foundation by providing advice on matters of community interest; 9) Work with TRCA and The Living City Foundation to identify priorities, seek new partnerships, public sector investment and other sources of funding; 10) Where appropriate, and when requested, serve as a spokesperson for media and government relations on behalf of staff; 11) Establish subcommittees/working groups or standing committees as needed, the Watershed/Waterfront Working Groups and Youth Council, and collaborate with the Indigenous Liaison Committee as needed; 12) Seek political support at all levels of government; 13) Collaborate with other conservation authorities, municipalities, environmental non-government organizations (ENGO) and groups on opportunities that transcend TRCA jurisdictional boundaries; 14) Maximize the collective impact of TRCA and other environmental and sustainability champions in the region through resource and data sharing, measuring, and reporting on regional priorities; and 15) Report to the Authority on a regular basis. 4.0 STRUCTURE Supported by TRCA staff, the Regional Watershed Alliance will have a Chair, Vice Chair, and will be comprised of approximately 45 voting members. 4.1.1 Voting Members The Regional Watershed Alliance members will be recruited based on a diverse skill set, sector and community specific expertise, network connections, demonstrated leadership, experience, and knowledge of the watersheds within TRCA’s jurisdiction. 484 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (up to five voting representatives, Ex-officio) o Preferably one representative from each of TRCA’s appointing member municipalities from the Authority or interested members. Watershed Residents (up to 20 voting representatives) o Up to 20 watershed residents selected from across TRCA’s nine watersheds and waterfront, having equal geographical and demographic representation. Sector Experts and Organizations (up to 10 voting representatives) o Up to 10 members from non-government, think-tanks, business and special interest groups, representing diverse sectors including youth and Indigenous groups. Municipal Representatives (up to eight voting representatives, Ex-officio) o Representatives of municipalities within TRCA’s jurisdiction. These representatives could be political representatives representing the municipality or an Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) representative. Non-voting senior staff liaison can also be appointed. Provincial Representative (up to one voting representative, Ex-officio) o Up to one political representative or senior staff from the Province of Ontario. Federal Representative (up to one voting representative, Ex-officio) o Up to one local political representative or senior staff from the Government of Canada. 4.1.2 Non-Voting Experts In addition to voting members, one to two non-voting experts with extensive experience in public sector or subject matter expertise can be invited to join to the Regional Watershed Alliance. These experts could be former TRCA or other conservation authority (CA) staff and are not required to be a resident of TRCA’s watersheds. 4.1.3 Guests The Regional Watershed Alliance meetings are open to the public. Municipal or other agency staff may be invited as guests to offer presentations or participate in discussions on relevant issues. Guests will not have voting privileges nor be eligible for travel expenses to and from meetings. 4.1.4 Chair or Vice Chair The Chair and Vice Chair of the Regional Watershed Alliance will be elected from amongst its members for the term of the Alliance. The Authority may appoint an interim Chair until such time as an election can take place. The voting procedures used will be that outlined in TRCA’s Rules of Conduct. 485 The Regional Watershed Alliance Chair and Vice Chair will provide leadership in building a shared vision and commitment for moving forward with the Regional Watershed Alliance’s mission, mandate and responsibilities. The Chair will have the following additional responsibilities: Presiding over Regional Watershed Alliance meetings, setting the agenda and generally ensuring the effectiveness of meetings; and Recruiting new members to the Regional Watershed Alliance when openings arise. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair will perform the above functions. 4.2 Appointment Process Authority Representatives: TRCA members will be appointed by the Authority as Ex-officio voting representatives. Watershed Residents: Applications from watershed residents will be solicited through direct recruitment, announcements in newsletters, local newspapers, web sites, volunteer networks, and through various social media platforms. A committee of TRCA staff and/or board members will select the Regional Watershed Alliance resident members through the application process using a set of criteria to ensure suitability and eligibility. Sector Experts and Organizations: Select organizations and agencies will be requested by TRCA to appoint a representative. Municipal Representatives: Formal request for appointment of municipal representatives will be made to municipal councils. These representatives will be Ex-officio members. Provincial and Federal representatives: Federal and provincial representatives (member of Parliament or staff) with specific interest in TRCA’s work and jurisdiction is in the TRCA watersheds/waterfront will be invited to participate as Ex-officio members. 486 4.3 Term of Appointment Regional Watershed Alliance will be established with a revolving term of up to four years. Members will be appointed for a two term with a possible extension of up to two more years. This will allow for a staggered replacement process maintaining a balance between new and experienced members. The membership will be reviewed on an annual basis. Members, excluding Ex-officio members, unable to fulfill their commitments may be replaced as per TRCA’s Roles of Conduct. Notice of resignations and recommendations for new members will be presented to the Authority for approval on an ‘as required’ basis. 4.4 Meetings Members are required to attend quarterly evening meetings of the Regional Watershed Alliance and one annual Watershed Forum. Meetings are expected to be approximately three hours in length, at the discretion of the Regional Watershed Alliance. An agenda will be circulated in advance of meetings. The Chair will have the discretion to call additional meetings, if required. Additional meetings may be required to deal with specific issues from time to time. Some meetings may be held during regular work hours depending on the preference and availability of members and staff or via conference call or online meetings. Light meals and refreshments will be provided at evening meetings. 4.5 Reporting The Regional Watershed Alliance is considered an Advisory Board of TRCA. The Regional Watershed Alliance will report to the Authority on projects and progress through their meeting minutes or seek Authority approval as necessary on specific initiatives. The Regional Watershed Alliance is not a formal commenting body regarding review and approval of planning applications or permits. 4.6 Quorum and Governance A quorum will consist of voting members in numbers greater than or equal to one-third of the total number of voting members on the Regional Watershed Alliance. Consensus-based decision making will be the preferred procedure. Formal decisions will be based on a simple majority vote. In the event of a tie, the vote fails. 487 4.7 Rules of Conduct The Regional Watershed Alliance will adhere to TRCA’s Rules of Conduct as adopted by Resolution #A34 at Authority Meeting #2/86, held on March 21, 1986, and as amended periodically or superseded by any bylaws enacted as per the Conservation Authorities Act. Other policies and legislation may be applicable in regard to code of conduct, conflict of interest and Volunteer Policy. 4.8 TRCA Staff Support The Regional Watershed Alliance will be supported by a team of staff from Watershed Strategies Division including: Director, Watershed Strategies; watershed specialists; projects managers; administrative support staff. Staff will provide the following support functions: Coordination of Regional Watershed Alliance meetings; Administrative and financial support; Strategic guidance on alignment of RWA work plan priorities with other strategic opportunities; Coordination of work with The Living City Foundation; The Living City Foundation support for management of any funds collectively raised by the Regional Watershed Alliance or any of its subcommittees that support the implementation of their work plans; and TRCA technical expertise on projects and initiatives of the Regional Watershed Alliance and its subcommittees. 4.9 Funding Funding will be available for projects and activities of the Regional Watershed Alliance based on approved work plans and available TRCA budget. Members are encouraged to assist in securing other resources and partnerships for Regional Watershed Alliance projects and activities, whenever possible through collective public investment opportunities. In-kind or other support for the projects and activities of the Alliance are welcome from businesses, industries, government agencies, private foundations, educational institutions and others in accordance with TRCA policies. In-kind or other support will be coordinated with the assistance of The Living City Foundation, where appropriate. 488 5.0 COMPENSATION FOR REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEMBERS At regular Regional Watershed Alliance meetings, as well as Watershed/Waterfront Working Groups, members will be eligible for travel expenses and any other expenses approved in advance by TRCA’s Director, Watershed Strategies, according to TRCA policy, where these are not covered by their agency or other source. The TRCA policy on volunteers is also applicable and can be accessed at: http://trca.on.ca/get-involved/volunteer/volunteers-and-interns.dot. Members shall not receive a per diem or honorarium for attendance at meetings and functions. 6.0 WATERSHED/WATERFRONT WORKING GROUPS The watershed/waterfront working groups will be subcommittees of the RWA and formed as deemed appropriate by the Regional Watershed Alliance. These committees may solicit local community representatives or experts to participate as needed. Mandate of these subcommittees can be watershed-wide or specifically focused around projects such as watershed plans. The Watershed/Waterfront Working Groups will report to the Regional Watershed Alliance. The supporting TRCA staff will coordinate regular reports to the Regional Watershed Alliance on the activities of these groups. Items pertaining to the working groups will be a standing item on the agenda of Regional Watershed Alliance meetings. 7.0 YOUTH COUNCIL The Youth Council will be comprised of community youth champions, existing youth group representatives and new recruits. The Youth Council will report to the Regional Watershed Alliance. The mission, mandate and goals, along with the Terms of Reference for the working groups, Youth Council will be developed by TRCA and the Regional Watershed Alliance in consultation with relevant stakeholders. 8.0 INDIGENOUS LIASON COMMITTEE The Indigenous Liaison Committee will be comprised of members and experts from different Indigenous communities in TRCA’s jurisdiction. They will liaise on Indigenous interests and help build stronger relationships between TRCA and the larger Indigenous population in the jurisdiction. This Committee will advise the Authority and staff on matters of community interest and liaise with the Regional Watershed Alliance on mission-driven collective projects. The Committee will not have a reporting relationship with the Regional Watershed Alliance or the Authority. The member(s) of this Committee may have membership on the Regional Watershed Alliance. This Committee will have opportunities to work with the Watershed/Waterfront Working Groups and Youth Council. TRCA staff and relevant stakeholders will collaborate on the development of a Terms of Reference for this Committee 489 Item 7.2 Watershed/ Waterfront Working Groups Youth Council Indigenous Liaison Committee TRCA board The Living City Foundation Regional Watershed Alliance Figure 1: TRCA Citizen Governance Model 490 RES.#A179/17 - BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE HYDRO SERVICE AND HVAC REPLACEMENTS Procurements and Delegation of Approval. Report on outcome of procurement of goods and services in support of the emergency hydro service replacement and delegation of approval for the HVAC replacement at Black Creek Pioneer Village, City of Toronto. Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Matt Mahoney THAT the report on the outcome of tenders and award of contracts for goods and services in support of emergency hydro service replacement at Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) be received; THAT the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Authority be authorized to award the construction contract for the replacement of the HVAC system at Black Creek Pioneer Village, City of Toronto, if staff is unable to report to the Executive Committee or Authority as per Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Purchasing Policy due to timing constraints; THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such actions as is necessary to implement these contracts including the signing and execution of documents; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the next Executive Committee or Authority as required after award of contracts. CARRIED BACKGROUND Emergency Hydro Service Replacement On September 23, 2016, BCPV experienced a power surge from an unknown source that resulted in a catastrophic power failure. The incident caused damage to existing electrical infrastructure within BCPV and at its main hydro feed to the property. While individual repairs have worked in years past, the aged infrastructure was deemed unrepairable, as it had degraded to a point that was unsafe and ultimately not meeting current electrical code. Emergency generators were utilized to allow for the facility operations to continue and to protect the historical structures from cold weather related damage. The generators were continually used in order to keep the main visitors centre, core BCPV buildings for the education component, staff offices and livestock spaces active. Due to the time constraints associated with reinstating the electrical infrastructure, the Authority received a staff report on the emergency hydro repairs at Meeting #8/16, held on October 28, 2016. Following the meeting, staff began to facilitate the planning, design and approval process to replace both the internal electrical infrastructure within BCPV and the main hydro service feeding the property. Due to the complexity of re-designing the BCPV electrical infrastructure, TRCA retained an electrical engineering firm, Ameresco Canada, to assist with the new detailed design. This new design would incorporate over 50 historical buildings and provide a more functional layout while preserving the authenticity of the heritage landscape of BCPV. The design to replace the main hydro service feed was more straightforward but would require additional approvals from Toronto Hydro and City of Toronto’s Ravine and Natural Feature Protection branch, to name a few. Additionally, the new equipment for this phase of work had a long 491 lead-time of 18 weeks for fabrication and delivery. These plans formed the basis of two major tenders, the first for the design-build services for the main high voltage feed into the property; and the second for the labour, material, supervision and equipment for the installation of the new electrical infrastructure design within BCPV. HVAC System at BCPV Similar to the aged electrical infrastructure, the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitors Centre’s HVAC system has passed its functional life. Existing mechanical systems are failing and in need of immediate replacement. At Authority Meeting #4/17, held on May 19, 2017, Resolution #A84/17 was approved as follows: THAT a preferred source contract for professional consulting services associated with the design, tender and construction of a replacement heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (HVAC) at the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre be awarded to Integral Group for a total cost not to exceed $175,000, plus HST; Working with the engineering firm Integral Group, TRCA staff is preparing plans to replace the existing failing heat pumps, cooling tower and boiler system with a centralized high efficiency air system. This plan also includes renovation of the ventilation system that provides fresh air into the building and a building automation system to provide greater control over the HVAC system. Costs associated with these works are estimated at $2.3 million and will allow for the existing HVAC system to remain in place until it is switched over to the new system. RATIONALE Emergency Hydro Service Replacement The tender for design-build services for the main high voltage feed into the property included: liaison with Toronto Hydro approval branch; environmental design requirements for tree protection and erosion and sediment controls; detailed design for a new three phase hydro connection stamped by an engineer; and all works associated with the installation of the approved design. The tender results (Attachment 1) were approved by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chair of the Authority and awarded to Black and MacDonald on January 27, 2017 to allow for the successful design-build general contractor to begin the design and place equipment orders for Toronto Hydro approved equipment. The results of the second tender (Attachment 2) for the installation of the new BCPV electrical design was authorized by the CEO and Chair of the Authority on March 29, 2017 to allow for disruptive construction activities to commence before the opening of BCPV operations on April 28, 2017. Initial contracts for rental of generators and procurement of fuel were approved by the CEO, and extended on an as-needed basis until power was restored at Black Creek Pioneer Village. The total fuel contract amount with Armstrong Fuel is $446,689; the total generator rental contract amount with Toromont CAT is $405,588. HVAC System at BCPV At Authority Meeting #1/17, held on February 24, 2017, Resolution #A16/17 was approved, in part, as follows: 492 WHEREAS in December 2016, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) received funding approval from FedDev Ontario, Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program (CIP 150) for: BCPV Building Envelope, Lighting, and HVAC Improvements; …THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the aforementioned projects approved for funding by FedDev Ontario be approved in principle; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report to the Authority for additional approvals as required. Staff anticipates that the construction of the new HVAC system must commence this fall in order to meet the deadline for substantial completion of the project by the March 31, 2018 deadline associated with the FedDev Ontario, Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program funds. In order to allow appropriate lead time for material orders and to achieve the funding deadline, staff seek Authority approval to delegate approval of award of such contract to the Chief Executive Officer and Chair for any goods and services contracts associated with the replacement of the HVAC system and that staff report back to the Executive Committee or Authority on the outcome of the tender process at the next available meeting. Staff will comply with the Purchasing Policy in the quotation process, but is recommending the elimination of the approval requirements of the Executive Committee and Authority as per Schedule ‘A’ of the Purchasing Policy. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following completion of the HVAC detailed design and permitting phase, staff will issue the tender for construction in November. The results of the tender process are expected to be reported to the Authority on January 5, 2018. FINANCIAL DETAILS Due to the inability of TRCA to acquire in-year emergency funding from the City of Toronto, TRCA paid for hydro repairs through reserve funding and is prepared to do so again in order to repair the HVAC in 2018. The City of Toronto has included the hydro repair funding in its proposed 2018 budget and HVAC repair funding in 2019, meaning that there will be a one year delay between TRCA’s cash outlay and receipt of funds, if the budget is approved in February 2018. Report prepared by: Aaron J. D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: ajdsouza@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards@trca.on.ca Date: October 2, 2017 Attachments: 2 493 Attachment 1 RE: MAIN HYDRO FEED REPLACEMENT AT BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE Contract #10003691 ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Award of Contract #10003691 for the design-build of the main hydro feed replacement for Black Creek Pioneer Village, in the City of Toronto. RATIONALE Tender documents were made available to the following three electrical contractors: Ainsworth; Black and MacDonald; and Sturdy Powerlines. Tenders closed and were opened on January 27, 2017 with the following results: BIDDERS TOTAL (Plus HST) Black and MacDonald $421,110.00 Ainsworth $425,032.21 Sturdy No Bid Based on the bids received, the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Authority have authorized the award of the contract to Black and MacDonald at a total cost not to exceed $421,110.00, plus 15% contingency, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that meets TRCA specifications. 494 Attachment 2 RE: HYDRO INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT AT BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE Contract #10004188 KEY ISSUE Award of Contract #10004188 for hydro infrastructure replacement within Black Creek Pioneer Village, in the City of Toronto. RATIONALE Tender documents were made available to the following 15 general contractors: KPC; City Electric Inc.; Dilisado Enterprises; Black and McDonald; Plan Group; BEC Electric; Platinum Electrical; P&M Electrical; Tiltran Services; Tristar Electric Inc.; Royal Custom Contracting; Aztek General Contracting; Sturdy Power Lines; Ainsworth Inc.; and Montana Electrical. Tenders closed and were opened on March 23, 2017 with the following results: BIDDERS TOTAL (Plus HST) Dilisado Enterprises $811,000.00 City Electric Inc. $853,700.00 Montana Electrical Contractors Ltd. $939,600.00 Ainsworth $999,360.24 Royal Custom Contracting $1,212,000.00 Tiltran Power Services Corporation $1,439,149.00 Black and McDonald Limited $1,597,829.55 Based on the bids received, the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Authority have authorized the award of the contract to Dilisado Enterprises at a total cost not to exceed $811,000.00, plus 15% contingency, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that meets TRCA specifications. __________________________________ 495 RES.#A180/17 - 111 WHITBURN CRESCENT SLOPE STABILIZATION AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Contract #10004835. Award of contract #10004835 for engineering and construction services for stormwater management improvements as a result of the July 8, 2013 storm event. Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Matt Mahoney THAT Contract #10004835 be awarded to Dynex Construction at a cost of $1,593,000 for the design and implementation of stormwater management improvements, and a provisional allowance for the disposal of contaminated materials of $300,000, for a total contract value not to exceed $1,893,000 plus HST, they being the highest ranked bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the value of the contract as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next highest ranked bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND On the evening of July 8, 2013, a severe thunderstorm passed through the Greater Toronto Area bringing large amounts of rainfall over the span of a few hours to the west end and downtown areas of the cities of Toronto and Mississauga. The storm event caused wide-spread flooding and significant damage to river and valley systems, including an unprecedented number of slope failures on private properties. Reports of damage to private property ranged from minor bank erosion and collapsing retaining walls, to major landslides. Multiple slope failures were identified behind private properties and on public lands within Downsview Dells Park, including the apartment complex at 111 and 117 Whitburn Crescent. The properties at 111 and 117 Whitburn Crescent are bounded by two unnamed tributaries of Black Creek; referred to herein as the North and South tributaries. During the July 8th storm event, a portion of the driveway for the building at 117 Whitburn Crescent collapsed, and sections of the slope adjacent to the driveway and parking area for the building at 111 Whitburn were significantly impacted by the concentration of runoff during the extreme rainfall. Works were completed to restore the driveway and impacted slope at 117 Whitburn Crescent in the spring of 2017. TRCA is now preparing to undertake the remaining works by completing the stormwater management improvements for the parking lot at 111 Whitburn Crescent, as well as the adjacent ravine and drainage channel, referred to as the South Tributary. RATIONALE Request for Tender for Contract #10004835 was publicly advertised on-line at www.biddingo.com on September 21, 2017, with a mandatory site meeting held on September 29, 2017. 496 The following companies attended the mandatory site meeting: CSL Group LTD Mar-King Construction Dynex Construction Bronte Construction NEI Construction Corp Dagmar Construction Inc. Ontario Construction Trisan Construction EBC Inc. Timbel Limited TBG Environmental The submissions were evaluated on a weighted scoring system. These criteria included the following: experience, and qualifications as it relates to the project scope; understanding of the scope of work; expertise and availability of key staff; and reasonableness of cost. The closing date for Contract #10004835 was October 10, 2017 with bids received from the following firms: CSL Group LTD Dagmar Construction Inc. Dynex Construction Bronte Construction The bid package received from Bronte Construction was incomplete, and therefore they were disqualified. Restoration and Infrastructure Division staff completed a thorough evaluation of the bids received using a standardized scoring methodology as follows: CRITERIA CONTRACT #10004835 Average Weighted Scores Based on Evaluation Committee Results COMPANY CSL Dynex Dagmar Experience and Qualifications 16.7% 28.3% 24.3% Reference Interviews 20% 20% 20% Reasonableness of Cost 20% 27% 20% Bid Price (Plus HST) $2,159,150.00 $1,593,000.00 2,149,081.23 TOTAL WEIGHTED POINTS 56.7% 75.33% 64.3% Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Dynex Construction be awarded Contract #10004835 for design and construction services for stormwater management improvements at 111 Whitburn Crescent, at total cost not to exceed $1,593,000.00 plus HST; they being the highest ranked bid that met TRCA specifications for the contract. A provisional allowance of $300,000 has been identified for the disposal of contaminated materials, as required; and a standard contingency allowance of 10%, plus HST is recommended, to be expended as required by TRCA staff. 497 The provisional cost of $300,000 identified for the proper disposal of contaminated materials is based on works completed on the adjacent property at 117 Whitburn Crescent, where additional fees of $320,000 were incurred for the disposal of approximately 7,000 tonnes of unexpected contaminated materials. The scale of work for 111 Whitburn Crescent is similar in scope, and therefore is expected to yield similar contaminated soil issues given the historic landfill activity in the vicinity. The implementation of works as outlined in Contract #10004835 is aligned with strategy number two of TRCA’s new strategic plan, as erosion hazard mitigation is a major component of responsible management of our water resources, particularly in urbanized areas. FINANCIAL DETAILS The upset limit for this contract is $2,082,300 including the base scope of the assignment, a provisional allowance for the disposal of contaminated materials as required, and a 10% contingency to address any additional unforeseen expenditures during the implementation of works. Funding for this contract is available from the City of Toronto through TRCAs’ Critical Erosion and Flood Works capital budget, within account 133-13. In compliance with TRCA’s Private Landowner Contribution for Erosion Control Works policy, Davpart Inc. will contribute $270,000 toward the total cost of the work, and has agreed to easements and restrictive covenants on the property to protect the works and facilitate future monitoring and maintenance. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The scope of the assignment includes the following items: 1. Renaturalization of the drainage channel and parkland area, originally impacted during the severe weather events of 2013. 2. New stormwater management system including a double catchbasin and drop structures for the tableland at 111 Whitburn Crescent. 3. Trench installation to improve groundwater movement through the area. 4. A new curb and gutter system with localized re-grading of the parking lot to promote drainage to the catchbasin. 5. Removal and proper disposal of contaminated materials, as required. 6. Stabilization of the slope and drainage channel adjacent to the property, to provide long term stability and proper stormwater management for the area. Report prepared by: Patricia Newland, 416-392-9690 Emails: pnewland@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Patricia Newland, 416-392-9690 Emails: pnewland@trca.on.ca Date: October 11, 2017 __________________________________ 498 RES.#A181/17 - COTTONWOOD FLATS PHASE 2 IMPLEMENTATION Additional Geotechnical and Environmental Services. Contract extension for Schollen & Company Inc. for the Cottonwood Flats Phase 2 project. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT the preferred bidder contract for Schollen & Company Inc. (Schollen) for the Cottonwood Flats Phase 2 project be extended from the original value of $46,476, plus HST, to $111,226 plus HST, to include additional geotechnical and environmental services required; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the additional geotechnical and environmental services, as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2009, the Natural Environment and Community Programs (NECP) section of the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation division began working with The Task Force to Bring Back the Don and TRCA on the development of a conceptual restoration plan for an area known as Cottonwood Flats. Cottonwood Flats is located within the Lower Don River valley, on the east side of the Don River near the base of Beechwood Drive. The site is contained entirely within the floodplain of the river and is seven hectares (Ha) in size. These lands are owned by TRCA and are under management agreement with the City of Toronto. The City of Toronto (Urban Forestry, NECP) commissioned Schollen to prepare a concept design for landscape, habitat and trail improvements to the site. The conceptual design included: Development of information kiosks, entrance features and interpretive trails; Signage for trails, ecological features and historical interpretation; Ecological restoration of the riverbank, Mill Race and terrestrial tablelands; Reconfiguration of the Beechwood Wetland outlet; Incorporation of a stormwater retention pond on a portion of the site. In 2012, the City again engaged Schollen to advance the concept design to detailed drawings, to enable construction to proceed. The City of Toronto entered into a fee for service agreement with TRCA to undertake the approvals and construction of Phase 1 of the work which included construction of a pathway, general site restoration and the construction of a song bird meadow. This Phase 1 implementation program was completed by TRCA in 2014. The approved 2012 Cottonwood Flats Designs included a number of features that were not originally included in the first phase of the project. This primarily included a proposed wetland feature and associated landscape elements. For 2015-2017, TRCA again entered into a fee for service agreement with the City of Toronto to prepare a Phase 2 implementation program to complete the Cottonwood Flats project. This included finalization of the wetland and landscape design, including pedestrian access and interpretation, and specifically to complete the construction drawings for implementation by TRCA in 2018. 499 TRCA entered into an approved, preferred source contract with Schollen at the end of 2016 for the preparation of detailed designs, construction drawings and for the preparation of detailed costing for the Cottonwood Flats Phase 2 project with the City of Toronto. The background work for the Phase 2 Cottonwoods Flats project indicated that the area had previously been the location of significant historic industrial development and filling, and had also been utilized by Transportation Services as a snow dump until the winter of 2004-2005. Preliminary site investigations have brought forward soil quality concerns, as well as geotechnical concerns attributed to these past disturbances. City of Toronto staff indicate that they wish to continue with the park development of the site, and that they would prefer that TRCA and Schollen address these concerns. To accomplish this, the preparation of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) under Ontario Regulation 153/04 of the Environmental Protection Act, is required. The completion of an environmental study to the extent required to support the submission of an RSC requires a significant increase in the level of geotechnical and environmental investigation including: Sub-excavation to a depth of approximately 4.5 m below existing grades in a roughly triangular 0.2 Ha area, immediately adjacent to the Don River; Geotechnical design investigations and recommendations for the inlet and outlet weirs to the Don River of the proposed wetland; Geotechnical design investigations and recommendations for the elevated wetland viewing areas supported by limestone block retaining walls at two locations. The City of Toronto would like to commence with this work as soon as possible and the site investigation should take place before the winter. RATIONALE The estimated cost to complete the environmental site investigation, reporting for the preparation of a Record of Site Condition, geotechnical investigation and inspection works, is valued at $64,750, plus HST, and a contingency allowance not to exceed 20%. This is above the original contracted amount of $46,476, plus HST and contingency resulting in a final preferred bidder contract with Schollen of $111,226 plus HST and contingency. The City of Toronto, through consultation, has targeted 2018 for capital funding for the construction of Phase 2 of the Cottonwood Flats project. The required additional work should be completed before the ground freezes this winter, so that the Record of Site Condition can be completed and submitted in late winter. This will ensure that the 2018 construction schedule can be achieved. Schollen is able to manage and coordinate the geotechnical investigations. This would result in an efficient delivery of the overall designs and RSC. Schollen is currently in the detailed design process of the Phase 2 program and can therefore efficiently modify designs to reflect the geotechnical and environmental results, or any recommendations, as part of the RSC findings. Schollen already has the technical expertise on board, and upon approval could commence the additional studies immediately, resulting in minimal delay. 500 Schollen has a long history of working with the Natural Environment and Community Programs section of the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation division, as well as TRCA. Schollen has proven to work effectively with the City and TRCA, and is also very experienced in working in the lower Don Valley on community based parkland projects. Schollen was the landscape architect that developed the original concept designs for the landscape, habitat and trail improvements for the project site in 2009. In 2012, Schollen also developed the detailed designs and construction drawings for the Phase 1 implementation program. Schollen is currently under contract with TRCA to develop the detailed designs and construction drawings for the Phase 2 program, and it is through the stakeholder consultation of this process that the need for the submission of an RSC has been triggered. City of Toronto staff has requested that TRCA extend the existing contract with Schollen to ensure that the project remains on schedule. The City will cover all additional costs through the existing fee for service agreement with TRCA. Staff is therefore recommending awarding Schollen & Company Inc. with the management and coordination of the additional environmental and geotechnical investigations required to complete the detailed designs for the Phase 2 program as a contract extension to their original contract. FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto within account #117-01. Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ted Elmhirst, extension 6419 Emails: telmhirst@trca.on.ca Date: October 16, 2017 __________________________________ 501 RES.#A182/17 - WARDEN WOODS PARK (DR01.1) MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECT, CITY OF TORONTO Award of Contract #10005809. Award of Contract #10005809 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for the construction of a vegetated rock buttress, rip rap toe protection and bio-engineering surface reinforcement for the Warden Woods Park (DR01.1) Major Maintenance Project, in the City of Toronto. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT Contract #10005809 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for the construction of a vegetated rock buttress, rip rap toe protection and bio-engineering surface reinforcement for the Warden Woods Park (DR01.1) Major Maintenance Project, in the City of Toronto be awarded to Bronte Construction Ltd. at a total cost not to exceed $139,000.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA constructed a 23-metre-long gabion basket retaining wall that is known as erosion control structure ID# DR01.1 along Taylor-Massey Creek in 1986 to help prevent toe erosion and channel migration while providing protection for an adjacent recreational trail. Wire degradation along the lower tiers of the structure has resulted in failure of the upstream 12 metres of the structure leaving an erosion scar. Additionally, the pedestrian asphalt trail is at risk as it is located 2.9 metres from the eroding bank. TRCA staff completed a topographic survey of the site in March 2015 but planning and design activities were put on hold to determine whether the site would be included in Toronto Water’s stream maintenance work in the area. The area is flagged as having a 5 to 10-year priority timeframe for implementation based on the Taylor-Massey Creek Geomorphic System Master Plan, and Toronto Water subsequently confirmed that there are no immediate plans to undertake works at this site as their sewer infrastructure is not imminently at risk. As bank erosion is progressing at the site placing the trail at risk over the short term and it may be upwards of 10 years before Toronto Water is able to implement comprehensive reach-based works at this location, TRCA recommends proceeding with the maintenance works outlined herein to proactively prevent the trail from being impacted. 502 The design of the major maintenance works was prepared internally by TRCA’s Engineering Projects team. The design was subsequently peer reviewed and sealed by a professional engineer from GHD Limited. The scope of work for this project includes removal of the failed upstream section of DR01.1, construction of a 12-metre-long vegetated rock buttress, installation of 20 metres of rip rap toe protection along the length of the site, and installation of bio-engineering surface reinforcement behind an existing armourstone retaining wall. Implementation for this contract is tentatively scheduled to commence November 14, 2017 and the substantial completion date is February 6, 2018, excluding replacement paving along the proposed access route. Paving will be completed in spring 2018 as weather conditions permit. RATIONALE A Request for Pre-Qualification (RFPQ) for Contract #10005809 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on Friday, August 11, 2017 with seven contractors being registered as full document takers. TRCA received pre-qualification packages from five contractors by the RFPQ closing date of Friday, August 25, 2017. Following TRCA staff’s review of pre-qualification packages and internal/external reference checks, a total of four contractors were pre-qualified. The Request for Tender (RFT) documents were then issued to the prequalified bidders on Friday, September 22, 2017 and a mandatory site information meeting was held on Friday, September 29, 2017. The mandatory site information meeting was attended by the following pre-qualified contractors: Bronte Construction Ltd. McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. R&M Construction Trisan Construction The Tender closed on October 6, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and the Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders that same day with the following results: CONTRACT #10005809 TENDER RESULTS BIDDERS TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (Plus HST) Bronte Construction Ltd. $139,000.00 R&M Construction $171,302.47 Trisan Construction $492,751.00 Restoration and Infrastructure staff reviewed the bid received from Bronte Construction Ltd. against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements as outlined in the contract documents. While TRCA has not directly worked with Bronte Construction Ltd. in the past, they received adequate positive feedback from references during the pre-qualification process. TRCA staff therefore recommends that Contract #10005809 be awarded to Bronte Construction Ltd. for a total cost not to exceed $139,000.00, plus a 15% contract contingency, plus HST as they are the lowest bidder meeting TRCA’s specifications. TRCA staff recommends a contingency value of 15% due to unknown soil conditions at the toe of the existing armourstone wall that will need to be excavated to install a portion of the rip rap toe protection. If the contractor encounters unexpected soil conditions, alternative measures may be required to ensure the stability of the existing armourstone wall. 503 This project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #2 “Manage our Regional Water Resources for Current and Future Generations” under TRCA’s 10-Year Strategic Plan as proposed works will contribute to maximizing the resilience of the watercourse in preparation for more severe and frequent weather events. The project is also aligned with Leadership Strategy #3 “Rethink Greenspace to Maximize its Value” as implementation of bank stabilization works will ensure long-term protection for the recreational trail, allowing the public to better connect with the natural park system. FINANCIAL DETAILS This project is fully funded from TRCA’s Erosion Work Major Maintenance Program within account 134-34, provided by City of Toronto capital funding. Report prepared by: Cameron Sanderson, 647-716-3815 Email: cameron.sanderson@trca.on.ca For information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647-808-6542 Email: arehana@trca.on.ca Date: October 6, 2017 __________________________________ 504 RES.#A183/17 - ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA MASTER PLAN Final Approval. Final approval of the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan, and reporting on the partnership opportunities for surrounding TRCA lands, and the status of the acquisition and expansion plan. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated April 2016 was approved in principle at Authority Meeting #3/16 by Resolution #A40/16; AND WHEREAS the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated April 2016 was endorsed by the Town of Caledon in April 2017 and supported by the Region of Peel via a letter dated March 2016; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff is actively exploring a phased approach for an expansion plan of Albion Hills Conservation Area (AHCA), and future relationships between AHCA Hills and nearby TRCA lands and projects; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan be approved; THAT staff continue to implement the recommendations within the Plan according to the budget and work plan; THAT staff report back on a land acquisition strategy for the expansion plan of the Albion Hills Conservation Area in early 2018; AND FURTHER THAT the Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND Albion Hills Conservation Area is TRCA’s most visited conservation area with over 158,000 annual visitors. Located in the Region of Peel within the Town of Caledon, AHCA is a large nature-based recreation, education and agriculture facility situated on 495 hectares of primarily forested land. Over the past 60 years AHCA has expanded its operations to include over 40 kilometres of trails used for mountain biking, hiking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, education and interpretation. AHCA offers users a splash pad and pool facility, over 230 campsites, two education facilities and a community farm. The property is also recognized as a venue for some of the largest outdoor events in the Greater Toronto Area, including the largest 24-hour mountain bike festival in North America. The initiation of the AHCA Master Plan was approved at the October 2013 Authority meeting. The plan was initiated to establish a vision framework, planning objectives and recommendations that will support the revitalization and enhancement of the property for the next 25 years. The Master Plan works to build on TRCA and provincial land use policies and plans, municipal official plans, secondary plans and tourism and recreation strategies. The Master Plan also used the principles laid out in TRCA’s 10-year strategic plan to help guide the recommendations and move TRCA towards its vision for The Living City. 505 The master plan was developed through a collaborative process between TRCA staff, municipal partners, stakeholders and community members. The consultation and engagement process helped to ensure that the needs of the community and stakeholders were heard and addressed wherever possible. The draft Master Plan was presented at Authority Meeting #3/16, held on April 22nd, 2016 and Resolution #A40/16 was approved as follows: WHEREAS the Authority approved the undertaking of the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan; AND WHEREAS the Public Advisory Committee supports the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan; AND WHEREAS the Region of Peel provided a letter of support for the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated March 1, 2016; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated April 2016 be approved in principle; THAT the approved Plan be circulated to the Town of Caledon requesting endorsement of the Plan; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff establish a stewardship committee to guide the implementation of recommendations; THAT following circulation and approval at the municipal level, staff report back to the Authority to confirm final approval of the Plan; THAT TRCA staff proceed to work with project partners to develop an integrated funding strategy according to the budget schedule; THAT staff report back on an expansion plan for the Albion Hills Conservation Area, a land acquisition strategy, and future relationships between Albion Hills and nearby TRCA lands and projects; AND FURTHER THAT the Region of Peel and the Public Advisory Committee be so advised. Following its approval in principle, staff then presented the Plan to Town of Caledon Council on April 4, 2017 and subsequently received endorsement of the Plan at this meeting. The following resolutions were recorded at the meeting: Whereas the Albion Hills Conservation Area is Ontario’s first conservation park providing the community with over 40 km of trail, camping, fishing, picnicking, splash pad; and pool facility for the last 60 years; and Whereas the Albion Hills Conservation Area is 495 ha outdoor recreation area just north of Bolton off Hwy 50; and 506 Whereas the Master Plan supports the optimization and restoration of existing features; the creation of new opportunities in emerging tourism markets, the provision of inclusive opportunities to a diverse audience, and improving capacity as a four season destination; Now therefore be it resolved, that Council endorse the Albion Hills Conservation Areas Master Plan; and That staff be directed to look for partnership opportunities with the TRCA regarding the Master Plan and report back to Council. In the fall of 2016, staff hired the landscape design company Dillon Consulting in order to move the critical recommendations of the Plan forward. Dillon Consulting was tasked with producing a site plan, grading plan and the schematic designs for recreation components found within the Lakeview area at AHCA. This process produced a design which will serve as the foundation to the restoration of the Lakeview area following the ongoing decommissioning of the AHCA dam in the fall/winter of 2017 and spring 2018. Land Acquisition Strategy for the Expansion of Albion Hills Conservation Area TRCA’s Property and Risk Management group in consultation with Parks and Culture has prepared an analysis of all adjacent lands to AHCA which would be suitable for acquisition. Using this information staff will prepare a land acquisition strategy for the expansion of AHCA and will report back on the strategy early in 2018. Albion Hills Conservation Area Future Relationships and Partnership Opportunities Given AHCA’s large land size and diversity of activities, there is an abundance of opportunities to partner with various organizations, municipal partners, and alternative TRCA groups and properties. There are two field centres located on the property: Etobicoke Field Centre, managed by the Toronto District School Board; and the Albion Hills Field Centre, managed by TRCA’s Outreach and Education division. The AHCA Master Plan supports the ongoing relationship with both of these education field centres and makes recommendations for the enhancement of educational opportunities within the park through the restoration of the Lakeview area. This will be accomplished with the addition of education nodes along the restored Centerville Creek to allow for interpretation of a cold water creek system including native fish species and various plantings. The Albion Hills Community Farm has been in operation for approximately seven years through a long term lease agreement. The farm helps to provide the community with access to local food and the opportunity to grow food through a community garden program. The master plan makes recommendations to strengthen this partnership through enhanced signage through the park and the possibility to sell produce through existing point of sale locations. AHCA has been seen as a key outdoor recreation resource in the Town of Caledon providing residents with access to the various recreational offerings. In addition, AHCA has been host to the Caledon Canada Day for over 21 years which sees in excess of 10,000 visitors throughout the day. This partnership will only be enhanced given the future restoration of the Lakeview area and development of a larger event area to host both large and small gatherings. At the request of Caledon Council, staff has engaged the Town’s Coordinator of Corporate Partnerships and Events - Strategic Initiatives to identify additional potential partnership opportunities between TRCA and the Town of Caledon. 507 AHCA is located in close proximity to many other conservation areas and passive use greenspace in both the Town of Caledon and Peel Region. This includes the Palgrave Forest and Wildlife Area located just north of AHCA. Palgrave provides users with access to trails, including the recent addition of mountain biking trails. For the past two years, these two properties have hosted an adventure race series that includes a course through both properties, allowing for a diversified user experience. Furthermore, TRCA is in the process of transforming Bolton Camp in the Town of Caledon into a unique new community commons that brings people together to share in the GTA’s rich arts, culture and recreation marketplace. Community developed and community driven, the new Bolton Camp will bring the business sector, not-for-profits, social enterprises and others together to provide youth, artists and entrepreneurs the opportunity to transform this historic landscape into a unique attraction that is fun, interesting and engaging. Future programmatic connections between AHCA and the new Bolton Camp include concurrently running education programs with the Albion Hills Field Centre and other academic partner institutions; resource sharing for program and events delivery; as well as the hosting of community and special events, all of which are designed to enhance the suite of activities and offerings TRCA delivers in Caledon and the communities of the Toronto region. RATIONALE TRCA has obtained endorsement from the Town of Caledon and received a letter of support from the Region of Peel. Implementing this plan will not only help TRCA address critical asset management needs, but will also help increase the resiliency of AHCA to better adapt to the changing recreational and tourism trends and ensure its success for the next generation of users. Located within 100 kilometres or a one-hour drive of approximately 8.8 million people, including the City of Toronto, AHCA plays an integral role in providing both rural and urban communities with the opportunity to experience a wide variety of recreation, education and agriculture focused activities. AHCA plays a major role in the community as it is both TRCA’s and the Town of Caledon’s most visited conservation area with 158,000 visitors. As the population in the GTA continues to grow, so too will the need and desire for access to nature-based recreational activities. With this increased pressure placed on greenspace, this plan helps to ensure that the increased use will be managed in order to continue protecting the sensitive natural areas located on site. The AHCA Master Plan builds on TRCA and provincial land use policies and plans, municipal official plans and secondary plans. The Master Plan used the principles laid out in TRCA’s 10-year strategic plan to help guide the recommendations and move TRCA towards its vision for The Living City. By rethinking greenspace to maximize its value, this plan will once again position AHCA as a leader in nature-based recreation, tourism and education by creating a variety of activities aimed at engaging more people with nature more often. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total cost to implement the capital development identified in the AHCA Master Plan is estimated at $27,217,000 over 10 years. Each project has been assessed for its priority and phased into the schedule accordingly. The detailed work plans for each major capital development will include comprehensive business cases, lifecycle costing and the creation of a tangible asset framework for the Plan. 508 The funds for implementing the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan are provided by the Region of Peel through TRCA’s existing capital levy and are located in account 440-58. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The implementation of the AHCA Master Plan recommendations began in the fall of 2016 and is progressing steadily. Moving forward, TRCA will continue to implement the sequence of recommendations outlined in the phased implementation plan. Ongoing work in 2017 includes: AHCA Dam removal, crossing construction and restoration of Centreville Creek (winter 2017 – spring 2018); Re-grading and restoration of the Lakeview area to provide recreational opportunities (fall/winter 2017); Relocation and construction of the pedestrian bridge in the Lakeview Area (winter 2017 – spring 2018); Detailed design and construction of the main pedestrian trail in the Lakeview area (fall 2017 – spring 2018); Critical paving projects (fall 2017); and Site plan and detailed design of the office and workshop (winter 2017 – summer 2018). Report prepared by: Kimberly Krawczyk, extension 5862 Emails: kkrawczyk@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kimberly Krawczyk, extension 5862 Emails: kkrawczyk@trca.on.ca Date: October 27, 2017 __________________________________ 509 RES.#A184/17 - 2018 FEE SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PROGRAMMING Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2018 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT the 2018 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming be amended as set out in Attachment 1, and become effective January 1, 2018. CARRIED BACKGROUND Each year, staff conducts a review of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming to determine if any changes are required. The review of fees takes into account the value of TRCA programs and facilities provided to customers, current market conditions such as comparable industry fees and legislative changes affecting businesses. Proposed changes are brought forth to ensure TRCA’s ecological and social practices are maintained, which include providing inclusive recreation and education experiences to diverse communities while protecting natural and cultural assets. Staff propose to increase fees for selected programs and restructure the 2018 fee schedule to facilitate sustainable program offerings. RATIONALE The following outlines proposed amendments to the 2018 fee schedule, which are detailed in Attachment 1. A copy of the full proposed 2018 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming is provided as Attachment 2. Add a youth age category age 5-14 to the Definition of Terms. Update the wording defining the admittance for persons with a disability to be more current and in line with similar organizations. Introduce a youth rate for ages 5-14 in order to be more in line with market conditions and the tourism industry. Increase fee for the rental of a fishing pond and picnic site at Glen Haffy Conservation Area to support program delivery costs. In order to promote the rental package of a fishing pond and picnic site at Glen Haffy Conservation Area Monday to Friday (except holidays), the package will no longer be offered on weekends. Increase fee for the rental of a fishing pond at Glen Haffy Headwaters Trout Ponds to support program delivery costs. Increase fee for each day camper, per day, inclusive of general admission at conservation areas to support program delivery costs. Increase camping fees at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge and Indian Line campgrounds to reflect the cost of program delivery, such as increasing rates for hydro and water services. Remove the option of a weekly camping rate at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge and Indian Line campgrounds to be more in line with industry standards. Increase fee for cross country ski trail use at Albion Hills Conservation Area (AHCA) to support program delivery costs. Increase fee for group cross country ski rental packages at AHCA to support program delivery costs. Change Bruce’s Mill Conservation Area guided Maple Syrup group tours fee from a single rate to a price range in order to accommodate different types of groups. 510 Redefine parking fee to visitors at Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV), which will allow for variable non-visitor rates. Increase fee for student half day and Dickson’s Hill programs at BCPV to support program improvements. Expanded price range for student rate for full day programs at BCPV due to new and enhanced programming. Increase fee for reserved groups participating in a guided tour at BCPV to support program delivery costs. Apply a parking fee at Bruce’s Mill Conservation Area during the Maple Syrup Festival in order to align with the Maple Syrup program at the Kortright Centre. Increase fee for general admission at the Kortright Centre to support program delivery costs. TRCA recognizes and promotes the full participation of all citizens in cultural, educational and recreational programs and services, as per TRCA’s Admittance Policy. Through a variety of offerings, TRCA’s public-use facilities engage diverse user groups, including persons with disabilities, financially challenged individuals and groups, children and Active Transportation users. TRCA continually strives to promote inclusion and access for all. Attachment 3 outlines a number of programs that TRCA has implemented to help alleviate barriers to participation and encourage greater access to nature-based cultural, educational and recreational experiences. FINANCIAL DETAILS The provincial government has proposed new employer requirements as part of the ‘Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs’ Act. Although these obligations have not yet been enacted, the proposed fee schedule will position the Parks and Culture division to address not only the Act requirements, but also additional budgeted cost increases to support 2018 program delivery costs. Report prepared by: Jamie-Lee Warner, extension 6425 Emails: jwarner@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards@trca.on.ca Date: October 13, 2017 Attachments: 3 511 Attachment 1 - Changes to the 2018 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and Programming Student program fees are effective September 2018 - August 2019 to coincide with the school year. Please note that the '# of Fees (2016)' are based on 2016 actual attendance figures provided by the Parks and Culture department. Item Description 2017 Base 2017 Gross (Including Taxes) 2018 Base 2018 Gross (Including Taxes) % Base Increase % Gross Increase # of Fees (2016) Projected TRCA Impact 1 For general admission at Conservation Areas, per day; 1.1 youth $ - $ - $ 2.65 $ 3.00 100.00%100.00%54,000 $ 143,100 2 For fishing at Glen Haffy per day, exclusive of general admission; 2.6 for the use of a fishing pond and picnic shelter for up to 75 participants inclusive of general admission and angling fee Monday through Friday, excluding holidays $ 795.00 $ 898.35 $ 895.00 $ 1,011.35 12.58%12.58%3 $ 300 3 For a permit for the use of a fishing pond at Glen Haffy Headwaters Trout Ponds, including general admission and the use of row boats; 3.1 up to 75 persons per day $ 895.00 $ 1,011.35 $ 1,145.00 $ 1,293.85 27.93%27.93%6 $ 1,500 5 For each day camper, per day, at a Conservation Area. $ 3.50 $ 3.50 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 14.29%14.29%77,194 $ 38,597 6 For a permit to occupy an un- serviced campsite, inclusive of general admission; 6.1 Albion Hills, per night. $ 31.00 $ 35.00 $ 33.00 $ 37.29 6.45%6.54%1,480 $ 2,960 6.2 Albion Hills, per month (28 days). $ 620.00 $ 700.00 $ 660.00 $ 745.80 6.45%6.54%0 $ - 6.3 Indian Line, per night. $ 32.50 $ 36.73 $ 34.50 $ 38.99 6.15%6.15%824 $ 1,648 6.4 Indian Line, per month (28 days). $ 650.00 $ 734.50 $ 690.00 $ 779.70 6.15%6.15%0 $ - 6.5 Glen Rouge, per night $ 31.00 $ 35.03 $ 33.00 $ 37.29 6.45%6.45%1,467 $ 2,934 6.6 Glen Rouge, per month (28 days). $ 620.00 $ 700.00 $ 660.00 $ 745.80 6.45%6.54%1 $ 40 512 Item Description 2017 Base 2017 Gross (Including Taxes) 2018 Base 2018 Gross (Including Taxes) % Base Increase % Gross Increase # of Fees (2016) Projected TRCA Impact 7 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite, with water and 15/30 amp hydro hook- ups, inclusive of general admission; 7.1 Albion Hills, per night. $ 36.50 $ 41.25 $ 38.50 $ 43.51 5.48%5.48%2,853 $ 5,706 7.2 Albion Hills, per month (28 days). $ 730.00 $ 824.90 $ 770.00 $ 870.10 5.48%5.48%3 $ 120 7.3 Albion Hills, per season. $ 2,555.00 $ 2,887.15 $ 2,695.00 $ 3,045.35 5.48%5.48%5 $ 700 7.4 Indian Line, per night. $ 38.00 $ 42.94 $ 40.00 $ 45.20 5.26%5.26%2,807 $ 5,614 7.5 Indian Line, per month (28 days). $ 760.00 $ 858.80 $ 800.00 $ 904.00 5.26%5.26%94 $ 3,760 7.6 Indian Line, per season. $ 3,040.00 $ 3,435.20 $ 3,200.00 $ 3,616.00 5.26%5.26%49 $ 7,840 7.7 Glen Rouge, per night. $ 38.50 $ 43.51 $ 40.50 $ 45.77 5.19%5.19%4,516 $ 9,032 7.8 Glen Rouge, per month (28 days) $ 770.00 $ 870.10 $ 810.00 $ 915.30 5.19%5.19%52 $ 2,080 8 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite, with water and 50 amp hydro hook-ups, inclusive of general admission; 8.1 Indian Line, per night. $ 43.00 $ 48.59 $ 45.00 $ 50.85 4.65%4.65%25 $ 50 8.2 Indian Line, per month (28 days). $ 860.00 $ 971.80 $ 900.00 $ 1,017.00 4.65%4.65%3 $ 120 8.3 Glen Rouge, per night. $ 41.50 $ 46.90 $ 43.50 $ 49.16 4.82%4.82%462 $ 924 8.4 Glen Rouge, per month (28 days). $ 830.00 $ 937.90 $ 870.00 $ 983.10 4.82%4.82%1 $ 40 9 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite with water, hydro, and sewage hook-up inclusive of general admission; 9.1 Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per night. $ 43.00 $ 48.59 $ 45.00 $ 50.85 4.65%4.65%115 $ 230 9.2 Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per month (28 days). $ 860.00 $ 971.80 $ 900.00 $ 1,017.00 4.65%4.65%11 $ 440 9.3 Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per night. $ 48.00 $ 54.24 $ 50.00 $ 56.50 4.17%4.17%686 $ 1,372 9.4 Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per month (28 days). $ 960.00 $ 1,084.80 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,130.00 4.17%4.17%17 $ 680 513 Item Description 2017 Base 2017 Gross (Including Taxes) 2018 Base 2018 Gross (Including Taxes) % Base Increase % Gross Increase # of Fees (2016) Projected TRCA Impact 14 For the use of cross-country ski trails at Albion Hills, inclusive of general admission; 14.1 adult $ 14.60 $ 16.50 $ 15.27 $ 17.25 4.59%4.55%1,050 $ 704 14.2 youth $ 8.19 $ 9.25 $ 9.07 $ 10.25 10.74%10.81%70 $ 62 14.4 senior $ 11.95 $ 13.50 $ 12.39 $ 14.00 3.68%3.70%140 $ 62 14.5 family living in the same household, with no more than two adults, and their children. $ 35.40 $ 40.00 $ 39.82 $ 45.00 12.49%12.50%100 $ 442 15 For the rental of a cross-country ski equipment package consisting of skis, boots and poles; 15.3 adult, in a group with a reservation, including trail fees, subject to a minimum group size of twenty participants. $ 25.00 $ 28.25 $ 26.55 $ 30.00 6.20%6.19%2 $ 3 15.4 youth, in a group with a reservation, including trail fees, subject to a minimum group size of twenty participants. $ 12.00 $ 13.56 $ 13.27 $ 15.00 10.58%10.62%70 $ 89 16 For a guided tour at Bruce’s Mill during the maple syrup program, as part of a tour group up to twenty five participants. $ 255.00 $ 288.15 175.00 – 288.15 175.00 – 288.15 (31.37%) - 13.00% (39.27%) - 0.00%100 $ (5,000) 17 Parking fee for Black Creek Pioneer Village, per vehicle, per day, exclusive of general admission. $ 6.19 $ 7.00 $ 6.19 $ 7.00 0.00%0.00% No proposed change $ - 18 For general admission to Black Creek Pioneer Village, per day; 18.6 half day student program to a maximum number of twenty participants 220.00 - 280.00 220.00 - 280.00 240.00 - 300.00 240.00 - 300.00 7.14% - 9.09% 7.14% - 9.09%555 $ 11,100 514 Item Description 2017 Base 2017 Gross (Including Taxes) 2018 Base 2018 Gross (Including Taxes) % Base Increase % Gross Increase # of Fees (2016) Projected TRCA Impact 18.7 full day student program to a maximum number of twenty participants 320.00 - 380.00 320.00 - 380.00 280.00 - 380.00 280.00 - 380.00 (14.29%) - 0.00% (14.29%) - 0.00%165 $ (6,600) 18.8 for the Dickson’s Hill School program to a maximum number of twenty participants $ 220.00 $ 220.00 240.00 - 400.00 240.00 - 400.00 9.09% - 81.82% 9.09% - 81.82%38 $ 3,750 19 for a guided tour at Black Creek Pioneer Village, as part of a tour group with a reservation to a maximum of twenty participants, including general admission; 220.00 - 380.00 248.60 - 429.40 240.00 - 380.00 271.20 - 429.40 0% - 9.09% 0% - 9.09%120 $ 2,400 20 For parking at the Bruce’s Mill Conservation Area during the Maple Syrup program, per vehicle, per day, exclusive of general admission (To align with Kortright Centre) $ - $ - $ 3.54 $ 4.00 100.00%100.00%4,000 $ 14,160 21 For general admission at the Kortright Centre for Conservation; 21.2 youth $ - $ - $ 2.65 $ 3.00 100.00%100.00%895 $ 2,372 21.3 adult $ 5.75 $ 6.50 $ 7.52 $ 8.50 30.78%30.77%2,160 $ 3,823 21.4 senior $ 4.87 $ 5.50 $ 5.75 $ 6.50 18.07%18.18%409 $ 360 21.5 youth participating in a weekend or evening public program. $ 6.00 $ 6.78 $ 6.64 $ 7.50 10.67%10.62%175 $ 112 21.6 adult participating in a weekend or evening public program. $ 12.00 $ 13.56 $ 12.83 $ 14.50 6.92%6.93%800 $ 664 21.7 senior participating in a weekend or evening public program. $ 6.00 $ 6.78 $ 6.64 $ 7.50 10.67%10.62%400 $ 256 Expected TRCA Impact from all Pricing Changes $ 258,545 515 Attachment 2 TRCA 2018 Fee Schedule Public Facilities and Programming Discounts............................................................................................ #7 Definition of Terms, items D1 to D3 Conservation Areas .................................................................................................................... items 1 to 16 Black Creek Pioneer Village..................................................................................................... items 17 to 19 Kortright Centre for Conservation ............................................................................................ items 20 to 21 Memberships .................................................................................................................................. item 22-24 All fees listed in this Schedule take effect January 1, 2018 Student program fees are effective September 2018 – August 2019 to coincide with the school year A youth age category was added in the Definition of Terms Wording was changed for item D.2 in the Definition of Terms A youth rate was added for general admission at Conservation Areas Fishing pond and picnic package rental fee at Glen Haffy Conservation Area increased and availability changed Fishing pond rental fee at the Glen Haffy Headwaters Trout Ponds increased Day camper rate at Conservation Areas increased Camping Fees at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge and Indian Line Campgrounds increased Option to occupy a campsite per week at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge and Indian Line was removed Cross country ski trail fee at Albion Hills increased Group cross country ski rental package fee at Albion Hills increased Bruce’s Mill guided Maple Syrup group tours fee structure changed to a price range in order to accommodate different types of groups Redefined parking fee at Black Creek Pioneer Village to allow for variable non-visitor rates Black Creek Pioneer Village student half day, full day and Dickson’s Hill program fees increased Black Creek Pioneer Village full day program price range expanded Black Creek Pioneer Village reserved group’s participating in a guided tour fee increased A parking fee at Bruce’s Mill Conservation Area during the Maple Syrup Festival was added Kortright Centre general admission and public programming rates increased Updated material may be distributed from time to time to include supplementary fees which are related to specific program activities, or to reflect changes to the schedule. 516 TRCA 2018 Fee Schedule - Definition of Terms 1 Age categories Four general age groups are used throughout the fee schedule as follows: Senior - any person sixty years of age or over. Adult - any person from fifteen to fifty-nine years of age. Youth - any person from five to fourteen years of age. Child (pre-schoolers) - any person four years of age or under. Some exceptions to this general age categorization apply to specific fee schedule items and are detailed under those items. 2 Conservation Area The term Conservation Area applies to Albion Hills, Bruce’s Mill, Boyd, Glen Haffy, Heart Lake and Petticoat Creek. Also included in this definition are the campgrounds at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge and Indian Line. For the purposes of this fee schedule, the definition does not include the Kortright Centre for Conservation or Black Creek Pioneer Village. 3 General admission General admission allows for basic access to a specified TRCA venue(s) during a designated operating period(s). Other fees may be charged in addition to, or in lieu of, general admission fees for certain facilities, programs or operating periods, as identified in this fee schedule or under various operating policies. 4 Group Camper Applies to members of an organized group staying overnight at a Conservation Area by permit. 5 Day Camper Applies to members of daycares, day camps, schools or the like, who are visiting a Conservation Area, Black Creek Pioneer Village or Kortright Centre during the regular operating day. 6 Operating policies This fee schedule is provided as a general summary of fees applied by TRCA at its public use facilities and venues. It does not provide, nor is it intended to provide, complete information as to the various regulations and operating policies in effect at these facilities and venues which may relate to individual fee schedule items. Daily, seasonal and program operating schedules, and minimum group size requirements are among these policies. 7 Discounts, premiums and promotions Any fee may be subject to a discount, premium or promotion at the discretion of the respective Manager. Standard discounts include but are not limited to: D.1 At Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre, fifteen percent (15%) off regular per person admission fees, subject to a minimum group size of twenty persons, exclusive of guided tours. D.2 A support person accompanying a person with a disability will receive free general admission to a maximum ratio of 1:1. D.3 Free general admission for Active Transportation users to TRCA Conservation Areas and the Kortright Centre as per TRCA Admittance Policy 517 8 Supplementary fees Not all fees are considered to be part of TRCA’s fee schedule as approved by the Authority. Some are set independently of that schedule. The sale of retail merchandise or the provision of incidental services represents the most common examples of such fees. 9 Student Programs Student programs are designed for children aged 14 years and under. 10 Conservation Membership – all of TRCA public use facilities and venues, including all TRCA Conservation Areas, Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright, as well as Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) Conservation Areas. 11 Camping Permit This permit states that camping fees include camping for six individuals or a family, per campsite. 518 TRCA 2018 Fee Schedule - Contents active transportation users ......................... Conservation Areas ...............................................................D.3 aquatic facilities - daily admission Petticoat Creek, Heart Lake, Albion Hills ....................................... 13.0 angling fee .......................................................... Glen Haffy ...................................................................... 2.0 boat rentals................................................. Conservation Areas ............................................................... 4.0 camping - day campers .............................. Conservation Areas ............................................................... 5.0 camping - group ....................................... Albion Hills, Indian Line .......................................................... 11.0 camping - public camping ............. Albion Hills, Glen Rouge, Indian Line ............................ 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 camping - supplementary fees ...... Albion Hills, Glen Rouge, Indian Line ............................................... 10.0 cross-country skiing - equipment rentals .......... Albion Hills .................................................................... 15.0 cross-country skiing - group rate ....................... Albion Hills .......................................................... 15.3, 15.4 cross-country skiing - trail fees ........................ Albion Hills .................................................................... 14.0 day campers ............................................... Conservation Areas .............................................................. 5.0 Dickson Hill School ............................................... BCPV ........................................................................ 18.8 educational tours - BCPV tour program ................ BCPV ............................................................. 18.6, 18.7 educational tours -…………………………….......Kortright…...........................................................21.7-21.9 fishing - Fly Fishers Club Membership ............... Glen Haffy ...................................................................... 3.3 fishing - public ponds ......................................... Glen Haffy ...................................................................... 3.0 fishing - pond rentals ..................... Glen Haffy Headwaters Trout Ponds.................................................. 3.0 general admission - BCPV .................................... BCPV ........................................................................ 18.0 general admission ...................................... Conservation Areas ............................................................... 1.0 general admission ................................................ Kortright .............................................................. 21.1-21.3 guided tour ............................................................ BCPV ........................................................................ 19.0 maple syrup tours ............................................. Bruce’s Mill .................................................................. 16.0 memberships - site specific ................................... BCPV ....................................................................... 23.0 memberships ................................. Conservation Areas, BCPV, Kortright ............................................... 24.0 memberships - site specific .................................. Kortright .................................................................... 22.0 parking ................................................................... BCPV ...................................................................... 17.0 parking.......................................................Kortright, Bruce’s Mill……….................................................20.0 picnics - group picnic sites ................. Conservation Areas/Kortright .................................................... 12.0 special needs persons .................. Conservation Areas, BCPV, Kortright .................................................D.2 swimming - daily admission ....... Petticoat Creek, Heart Lake, Albion Hills ............................................ 13.0 519 Item Description 2018 Base (Plus Taxes) 2018 Gross (Including Taxes) 1.0 For general admission at Conservation Areas, per day; 1.1 youth 2.65 3.00 1.2 adult 5.75 6.50 1.3 senior 4.87 5.50 2.0 For fishing at Glen Haffy per day, exclusive of general admission; 2.1 adult or senior 5.09 5.75 2.2 youth 2.52 2.85 2.3 child (pre-schooler) 0.00 0.00 2.4 adult or senior, in a group with a reservation, inclusive of angling fee and general admission, subject to a minimum group size of 20 participants. 7.50 8.48 2.5 youth in a group with a reservation, including angling fee and general admission, subject to a minimum group size of 20 participants. 3.25 3.67 2.6 for the use of a fishing pond and picnic shelter for up to 75 participants inclusive of general admission and angling fee Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 895.00 1,011.35 3.0 For a permit for the use of a fishing pond at the Glen Haffy Headwaters Trout Ponds, including general admission and the use of row boats; 3.1 up to 75 persons per day 1,145.00 1,293.85 3.2 each additional participant per day 10.00 11.30 3.3 for a membership to Headwaters Fly Fisher’s Club. 525.00 593.25 4.0 For the rental of a canoe, pedal boat or rowboat per hour. 12.39 14.00 5.0 For each day camper, per day, at a Conservation Area. 4.00 4.00 6.0 For a permit to occupy an un-serviced campsite, inclusive of general admission; 6.1 Albion Hills, per night. 33.00 37.29 6.2 Albion Hills, per month (28 days). 660.00 745.80 6.3 Indian Line, per night. 34.50 38.99 6.4 Indian Line, per month (28 days). 690.00 779.70 6.5 Glen Rouge, per night 33.00 37.29 6.6 Glen Rouge, per month (28 days). 660.00 745.80 6.7 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit fee specified in item 6.1,6.4 or 6.7 3.00 3.39 520 Item Description 2018 Base (Plus Taxes) 2018 Gross (Including Taxes) 7.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite, with water and 15/30 amp hydro hook-ups, inclusive of general admission; 7.1 Albion Hills, per night. 38.50 43.51 7.2 Albion Hills, per month (28 days). 770.00 870.10 7.3 Albion Hills, per season. 2,695.00 3,045.35 7.4 Indian Line, per night. 40.00 45.20 7.5 Indian Line, per month (28 days). 800.00 904.00 7.6 Indian Line, per season. 3,200.00 3,616.00 7.7 Glen Rouge, per night. 40.50 45.77 7.8 Glen Rouge, per month (28 days) 810.00 915.30 7.9 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit fee specified in item 7.1, 7.5 or 7.9. 3.00 3.39 8.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite, with water and 50 amp hydro hook-ups, inclusive of general admission; 8.1 Indian Line, per night. 45.00 50.85 8.2 Indian Line, per month (28 days). 900.00 1,017.00 8.3 Glen Rouge, per night. 43.50 49.16 8.4 Glen Rouge, per month (28 days). 870.00 983.10 8.5 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit fee specified in item 8.1 or 8.4. 3.00 3.39 9.0 For a permit to occupy a serviced campsite with water, hydro, and sewage hook-up inclusive of general admission; 9.1 Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per night. 45.00 50.85 9.2 Indian Line with 30 amp hydro service, per month (28 days). 900.00 1,017.00 9.3 Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per night. 50.00 56.50 9.4 Indian Line with 50 amp hydro service, per month (28 days). 1,000.00 1,130.00 9.5 on a statutory holiday or other designated date, in addition to the basic permit fee specified in item 9.1 and 9.4. 3.00 3.39 10.0 In addition to basic camping fees as specified in items 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0; 10.1 for a permit to park an additional vehicle, per night. 10.00 11.30 10.2 for a permit to park an additional vehicle, per season. 75.00 84.75 10.3 each additional person occupying a campsite over and above the campground’s specified site limit, per night. 5.00 5.65 11.0 For a permit to occupy a group campsite at Albion Hills, Glen Rouge, or Indian Line; 11.1 for a permit to occupy a group campsite, exclusive of general admission; 200.00 – 500.00 226.00 – 565.00 521 Item Description 2018 Base (Plus Taxes) 2018 Gross (Including Taxes) 12.0 For a permit for the use of a group picnic site, exclusive of general admission; 155.00 – 500.00 175.15 – 565.00 13.0 For admission to aquatic facilities exclusive of general admission, per day; 13.1 Albion Hills, for each person two years of age or over. 3.32 3.75 13.2 Petticoat Creek and Heart Lake, for each person two years of age or over. 4.20 4.75 14.0 For the use of cross-country ski trails at Albion Hills, inclusive of general admission; 14.1 adult. 15.27 17.25 14.2 youth. 9.07 10.25 14.3 child (pre-schooler). 0.00 0.00 14.4 senior. 12.39 14.00 14.5 family living in the same household, with no more than two adults, and their children. 39.82 45.00 15.0 For the rental of a cross-country ski equipment package consisting of skis, boots and poles; 15.1 adult 17.25 19.50 15.2 youth 12.00 13.56 15.3 adult, in a group with a reservation, including trail fees, subject to a minimum group size of twenty participants. 26.55 30.00 15.4 youth, in a group with a reservation, including trail fees, subject to a minimum group size of twenty participants. 13.27 15.00 16.0 For a guided tour at Bruce's Mill during the maple syrup program, as part of a tour group up to a maximum of twenty five participants. 175- 255.00 175- 288.15 17.0 For visitor parking for Black Creek Pioneer Village, per vehicle, per day, exclusive of general admission. 6.19 7.00 18.0 For general admission to Black Creek Pioneer Village, per day; 18.1 adult 15.00 16.95 18.2 youth 11.00 12.43 18.3 child (pre-schooler) accompanying their family. 0.00 0.00 18.4 senior 12.00 13.56 18.5 student fifteen years of age or over, with student identification. 12.00 13.56 18.6 half day student program to a maximum number of twenty participants. 240.00 – 300.00 240.00 – 300.00 18.7 full day student program to a maximum number of twenty participants. 280.00 – 380.00 280.00 – 380.00 18.8 for the Dickson’s Hill School program to a maximum number of twenty participants. 240.00 – 400.00 240.00 – 400.00 522 Item Description 2018 Base (Plus Taxes) 2018 Gross (Including Taxes) 19.0 For a Guided Tour at Black Creek Pioneer Village, as part of a tour group with a reservation to a maximum of twenty participants, including general admission; 240.00 – 380.00 271.20 – 429.40 20.0 For parking at the Kortright Centre for Conservation and Bruce’s Mill Conservation Area during the Maple Syrup program, per vehicle, per day, exclusive of general admission. 3.54 4.00 21.0 For general admission at the Kortright Centre for Conservation; 21.1 child 0.00 0.00 21.2 youth 2.65 3.00 21.3 adult 7.52 8.50 21.4 senior 5.75 6.50 21.5 youth participating in a weekend or evening public program. 6.64 7.50 21.6 adult participating in a weekend or evening public program. 12.83 14.50 21.7 senior participating in a weekend or evening public program. 6.64 7.50 21.8 half day student program to a maximum number of thirty participants 200.00 – 220.00 200.00 – 220.00 21.9 full day student program to a maximum of thirty participants. 375.00- 400.00 375.00 – 400.00 21.10 booked programmed groups using grounds for self-guided activities during non-programming time on same day as booking. Subject to a maximum group of thirty persons. 50.00 50.00 22.0 Kortright Centre Membership valid for admission, inclusive of parking fees, to the Kortright Centre for Conservation; 22.1 individual membership. 50.00 56.50 22.2 family & friends membership; admission for up to four individuals 85.00 96.05 23.0 Black Creek Pioneer Village Membership valid for general admission, inclusive of parking fees, to Black Creek Pioneer Village; 23.1 individual membership. 60.00 67.80 23.2 family & friends membership; admission for up to four individuals. 95.00 107.35 24.0 Conservation Membership valid for general admission to all TRCA and CVC conservation areas, Kortright Centre for Conservation, and Black Creek Pioneer Village; 24.1 individual membership. 75.00 84.75 24.2 family & friends membership; admission for up to six individuals. 135.00 152.55 523 Attachment 3 1867 Membership Giveaway In celebration of Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) parks launched an online promotional contest to give away 1,867 memberships. This contest ran from April 29 to September 29, 2017. In that time, TRCA and CVC welcomed 1,448 new members, 419 renewing members, 2,485 new newsletter subscribers and 8,569 visitors to our contest website page. By giving away free memberships, TRCA and CVC alleviated financial barriers to participation, built customer loyalty and promoted our many site offerings. Pilot Program with Peel Public Libraries In 2015, CVC and TRCA piloted a program with the City of Brampton and Town of Caledon public libraries to provide access to conservation parks for financially challenged citizens and groups. Conservation Parks Family and Friends Memberships are now available for “checkout” at Brampton, Caledon and Mississauga public libraries. This program offers families free access to TRCA and CVC parks, the Kortright Centre for Conservation and Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV), promoting inclusivity, encouraging nature-based experiences, supporting healthy communities, and increasing awareness of TRCA and CVC facilities. With well over 2,000 checkouts since its inception, this program has proven successful and popular. Staff is currently working on implementing this initiative in all municipalities in the TRCA watershed. Pilot Program with the Region of Peel In partnership with CVC, TRCA has been collaborating with the Region of Peel Healthy Communities Initiative to “get more kids, more active, more often”. TRCA and CVC have provided free admission opportunities to over 7,500 students and their families in 2017 as part of a pilot program. This program has increased access to the outdoors to promote lifelong engagement. Staff teams continue to collaborate to develop new programs that encourage more students to participate more often in nature based recreational and cultural experiences. Cultural Access Pass Program TRCA participates in the Institute for Canadian Citizenship’s Cultural Access Pass (CAP) program, which celebrates multiculturalism by offering new Canadian citizens free general admission to our country’s natural and cultural treasures. As a participating cultural attraction, Black Creek Pioneer Village welcomed 1,113 CAP members in 2016. This initiative has been extended to TRCA’s parks to provide CAP members with greater access to TRCA facilities. Active Transportation Policy Committed to promoting active transportation, TRCA is working with various stakeholders, and municipal/sector partners to formalize additional community trail access points to conservation areas and to expand hiking and cycling trail connections. This will encourage more people to enjoy nature-based recreation more often, and will help reduce sedentary lifestyles. Environmental Leaders of Tomorrow Program Through funding from private donors and municipal partners, including The W. Garfield Weston Foundation, and the Region of Peel, TRCA ensures that 20% of all visits to Albion Hills, Claremont and Lake St. George field centres are allocated to schools and classes from communities that face economic barriers to participation in overnight field trips to TRCA education centres. The Environmental Leaders of Tomorrow program is designed to enhance learning and action outcomes for schools in need, both at the field centres, as well as within the home communities of the visiting students. 524 Free Admission Programs TRCA’s public-use facilities offer free admission programs to promote access and inclusion. At Black Creek Pioneer Village, free admission programs benefited 9,029 visitors to the site in 2016. Every Tuesday after 2:00 pm (excluding March break and special events), BCPV offers free general admission for everyone. During weekdays in July and August (excluding holidays), youth (age 5-14) receive free admission. Seniors (age 60 or over) receive free general admission on weekdays in September (excluding holidays). BCPV is also a part of the Museums + Arts Pass (MAP) Program, which is an outreach and social equity initiative managed by Sunlife Financial in partnership with Toronto public libraries. This initiative provides free access to cultural institutions for people living in priority neighborhoods. At all TRCA public-use facilities, free general admission is offered to children age 0-4. Through the Ontario Teacher’s College membership, teachers receive free admission at all facilities. Participants of Vaughan Culture Days (formally Doors Open) and Doors Open Toronto receive free admission to the Kortright Centre and Black Creek Pioneer Village, respectively. In October, the Kortright Centre also offers a Family Adventure Walk in the Forest in October where families can participate free of charge and children are encouraged to participate in “forest school inspired” activities. TRCA also waives admission fees for support persons accompanying visitors with disabilities to alleviate barriers to experiencing culture and nature-based outdoor recreation. 525 RES.#A185/17 - 2016 LAKE ONTARIO WORKSHOP AND 2017/2018 WESTERN LAKE ONTARIO BASIN-LAKE INITIATIVE To inform the Authority on upcoming efforts to integrate watershed management activities with Lake Ontario Initiatives, and recommend directions to advance these efforts. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC), with funding support from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, held a workshop on September 19-20, 2016 (Developing a Western Lake Ontario Consortium(s), Promoting cooperative thinking, planning and actions for the populated/most at risk areas of Lake Ontario) to gauge interest in western Lake Ontario, discuss the merits of working together to protect this unique part of the Lake and to make the connections between actions on land and the health of western Lake Ontario; AND WHEREAS Environment and Climate Change Canada has since provided additional funding to further this Basin-Lake Initiative through a number of workshops and engagement activities in 2017 and 2018; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff continue to work with CVC, federal, provincial and municipal staff, other local conservation authorities, the academic community, environmental non-governmental organizations, and others to integrate watershed management and Lake health to address the needs of western Lake Ontario; THAT TRCA staff explore the development of a model for achieving collaborative arrangements necessary for coordination of efforts on the land that could benefit the nearshore of western Lake Ontario; THAT staff from TRCA and CVC present to the Greater Golden Horseshoe Chief Administrative Officers’ and General Managers’ November 2017 meeting seeking endorsement and guidance on the pursuit of collaborative arrangements; THAT staff from TRCA and CVC align their Basin-Lake Initiative efforts with the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), the Greenbelt Plan (2017), the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017) and the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017), which could ultimately benefit the 2018 Lake Ontario Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative, Source Water Protection, Toronto Remedial Action Plan, the Lake Ontario Lakewide Action and Management Plan, and efforts from the Lake Partnership Management Committee; THAT findings from this effort and future Basin-Lake Initiative be integrated into the next generation of watershed plans within the Lake Ontario basin; THAT staff from TRCA and CVC report back to their boards at the conclusion of the 2017/2018 workshops; 526 AND FURTHER THAT Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, provincial and federal governments, neighbouring municipalities and conservation authorities to the subject area, the Great Lakes Cities Initiative, and Conservation Ontario be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND The western basin of Lake Ontario is the receiving waters for one of the most highly populated regions in Canada. This region of the lake, from Cobourg to Niagara-on-the-Lake, has a long history of water quality and ecosystem health concerns, with pollutant and nutrient loadings from the land significantly impacting the lake. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), the governments of Canada and the United States have committed to restore and maintain the physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes. The GLWQA formed a Great Lakes Executive Committee which includes Watershed Management Agency representatives from both countries; Conservation Ontario (CO) has a representative at this table and regular reports are provided to CO Council. The Lake Ontario Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) is a binational plan for restoring and protecting Lake Ontario’s ecosystem. Effective collaboration among various jurisdictions and organizations is a priority of the Lakewide Annex of the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the corresponding LAMP. The Conservation Ontario representative on the Annex Committee has encouraged a stronger acknowledgement of the watershed management agency/conservation authority (CA) role in LAMPs. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) are interested in seeking better relationships with their partners for LAMP implementation, with a goal of supporting community engagement in decision making, and taking action to restore, protect and conserve Lake Ontario. The 2016 workshop, entitled: “Developing a Western Lake Ontario Consortium(s), Promoting cooperative thinking, planning and actions for the populated/most at risk areas of Lake Ontario” had an overwhelmingly positive response with 90 participants from local and upper tier municipalities, provincial and federal governments, conservation authorities, non-government organizations, and several academics. Interest and momentum for this event was secured through peer-to-peer engagement and promotion. This workshop served as a forum to discuss collaborative actions that can be implemented to restore, preserve and protect Lake Ontario. The goals of the workshop were to: Establish that western Lake Ontario needs to be a focus; Demonstrate how local partnerships help binational and provincial efforts to protect and treat the lakes as an entity; Determine the specific needs/approaches for western Lake Ontario; Identify past and existing cooperative arrangements within western Lake Ontario; Examine other approaches for partnerships/consortiums in other lakes (e.g. Healthy Lake Huron, Lake Simcoe); Identify steps to determine a successful and appropriate model for coordinating efforts and collaborating along western Lake Ontario; 527 Three breakout sessions identified a willingness to be a part of a locally led Lake Ontario initiative that has a clearly defined vision. Being part of an initiative will allow collecting of resources and a concentration of efforts on land that can benefit the land, rivers and Lake Ontario. A champion needs to be identified who can help develop an organizational structure and lead this initiative, and play a significant role in bridging the gap between land and lake health. To further this Basin-Lake Initiative, TRCA and CVC will hold two workshops that will explore the connectivity between watersheds and Lake Ontario. Potential themes will include: documenting current research and efforts amongst organizations that might impact Lake Ontario; exploring creative ways to support management actions to focus on growth, adaptation, implementation and minimizing the effects of growth on the nearshore of the Lake; approaches for integrating science, policy and implementation; and exploring synergies between the Western Lake Ontario Basin-Lake Initiative and other binational efforts aiming to restore Lake Ontario water quality. RATIONALE Formal reports from the first workshop were submitted to the provincial and federal governments, in accordance with their deadlines of November 15, and December 31, 2016, respectively. Two workshops are proposed to be held, in autumn 2017 and winter 2018, to further this initiative. Further reporting will be submitted to the government in March 2018. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the 2016 workshop was provided by ECCC ($5,000) and MOECC ($5,000). New resources ($40,000) have been provided by ECCC to continue the evolution of this concept in 2017/2018. MOECC will also contribute to the 2017/2018 workshops ($5,000). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will incorporate feedback from the Authority and from the Greater Golden Horseshoe Chief Administrative Officers’ and General Managers’ November meeting into comments to include in future reporting to the federal and provincial governments. Staff will continue to pursue focused engagement from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Cobourg. The first event (fall 2017) will focus on engaging delegates from Niagara-on-the Lake to Halton, as they were under-represented at the initial 2016 workshop. The second event (winter 2018) will bring together a subset of the Niagara-on-the-Lake to Halton participants from 2017 and a subset of the 90 original workshop participants, predominantly from Mississauga to Cobourg, to discuss next steps and explore collaborative arrangements necessary for coordination of efforts on the land and within the nearshore of western Lake Ontario. Report prepared by: Krista Chomicki, extension 5857 Emails: kchomicki@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Bowen, 416-271-8944 Emails: gbowen@trca.on.ca Date: September 19, 2017 __________________________________ 528 RES.#A186/17 - CONSERVATION ONTARIO MEMBERSHIP Appointment. Appointment of representative to Conservation Ontario. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT incumbent Chief Executive Officer, John MacKenzie, be appointed as Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Second Alternate to Conservation Ontario, effective November 6, 2017, until his successor is named; AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND Conservation Ontario is an umbrella organization representing all 36 conservation authorities which brings together members and staff to achieve common goals. Conservation Ontario is governed by a Council consisting of three representatives of each conservation authority. Council directs the activities of staff and a variety of working groups, task forces and committees focusing on various areas of common interest to all conservation authorities. Conservation Ontario’s bylaws require that member conservation authorities appoint Representatives which include a Voting Delegate, Alternate and Second Alternate as follows: c) “Representatives” are the appointees of the Member Conservation Authorities or other groups who have been invited to become Members of Conservation Ontario, and who participate on behalf of the Members in meetings of Council or Committee of the Whole; provided that at such meetings, decisions will be taken by the Members only by votes of the Voting Delegates (or Alternates).. Their specific duties and responsibilities are outlined in Appendix E. d) “Members” of Conservation Ontario are those organizations who have been invited to become Members of Conservation Ontario and who have accepted that membership and had their membership confirmed by a resolution of Council. e) “Voting Delegate” is a Representative designated by a Member to vote on its behalf at Council meetings. f) The “Alternate” is a Representative designated by a Member who votes at Council meetings if the Voting Delegate is unable to attend. g) The “Second Alternate” is a Representative designated by a Member who votes at Council if the Voting Delegate or Alternate is unable to attend. The appointment of representatives requires approval of the Authority as noted in the Council Composition as follows: 2. Composition Members may appoint up to three Representatives, designated as Voting Delegate, Alternate, and Second Alternate. Council will consist of the Voting Delegates appointed by each Member. The Voting Delegate and both Alternates shall be registered with Conservation Ontario annually. 529 Chair Maria Augimeri, Vice Chair Jack Heath and Chief Executive Officer Brian Denney were appointed by the Authority as Voting Delegate, Alternate and Second Alternative, respectively, until their successors are appointed. With the impending retirement of Brian Denney and appointment of his successor, John MacKenzie as of November 6, 2017, as per Conservation Ontario bylaws, John MacKenzie must be appointed by the Authority as TRCA’s Second Alternate on Conservation Ontario. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: October 10, 2017 ______________________________ RES.#A187/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Monarch Castlepoint Kipling North Development Ltd. and Monarch Castlepoint Kipling South Development Ltd. CFN 58669. Acquisition of property located west of Kipling Avenue and north of Stegman’s Mill Road/Teston Road - Kleinburg, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B86/17) Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT 84.80 hectares (209.53 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located west of Kipling Avenue and north of Stegman’s Mill Road/Teston Road - Kleinburg, said land being Part of Lots 26, 27, 28, and 29, Concession 8, designated as Blocks 52 to 64 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Guido Papa Surveying, under their Reference No. 15-18-123-09, dated July 25, 2017; Blocks 71 to 75 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by J. D. Barnes Ltd., under their Reference No. 15-18-123-07, dated April 3, 2017; Blocks 117 & 118, 121 to 138 and 140 & 141 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by J. D. Barnes Ltd., under their Reference No. 15-18-123-08, dated April 6, 2017; and Blocks 197 to 205, 209 & 210 and 212 to 217 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Guido Papa Surveying, under their Reference No. 15-18-123-10, undated, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Monarch Castlepoint Kipling North Development Ltd. and Monarch Castlepoint Kipling South Development Ltd.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; 530 THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A188/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke Creek Watershed Kennedy Trails Development Inc., CFN 58523. Acquisition of property located west of Kennedy Road and south of Old School Road, in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B87/17) Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT 0.29 hectares (0.72 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located west of Kennedy Road and south of Old School Road, said land being Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 EHS, designated as Blocks 120 and 121 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by J. H. Gelbloom Surveying Ltd., under their Project No. 11-005, dated August 18, 2017, in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, be purchased from Kennedy Trails Development Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ 531 RES.#A189/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek Watershed Woodview Land Development Corporation, CFN 58584. Acquisition of property located at 1952, 1956 and 1960 Woodview Avenue, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B88/17) Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT 0.89 hectares (2.20 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located at 1952, 1956 and 1960 Woodview Avenue, said land being Part of Lot 10, Registered Plan 329 designated as Block 23 on draft M-Plan, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from Woodview Land Development Corporation; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A190/17 - THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Request for a Permanent Easement Required for the West Vaughan Sewage System Project, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed, CFN 58475. Receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of York for a permanent easement required for the West Vaughan Sewage System Project, located west of Islington Avenue and south of Regional Road No. 7, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York. (Executive Res.#B89/17) Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti 532 WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of York for a permanent easement required for the West Vaughan Sewage System Project, located west of Islington Avenue and south of Regional Road No. 7, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the Regional Municipality of York in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.06 hectares (0.16 acres), more or less, be granted to the Regional Municipality of York for the West Vaughan Sewage System Project, being Part of Lot 59, Registrar’s Complied Plan No. 9831 and designated as Part 4 on Plan 65R-36246, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00; all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the Regional Municipality of York; THAT the Regional Municipality of York is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigation measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of Regional Municipality of York; THAT a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval, in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of Regional Municipality of York; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by Regional Municipality of York prior to the commencement of construction; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ 533 RES.#A191/17 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for Permanent Easement Required for a Replacement Sanitary Sewer in Chipping Park,City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 57973. Receipt of a request from City of Toronto, for a permanent easement required for a replacement sanitary sewer in Chipping Park, located north of Lawrence Avenue East and east of Don Mills Road, in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed. (Executive Res.#B90/17) Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from City of Toronto for a permanent easement required for a replacement sanitary sewer in Chipping Park located north of Lawrence Avenue East and east of Don Mills Road, in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.27 hectares (0.66 acres), more or less, of vacant land, required for a replacement sanitary sewer in Chipping Park, designated as Part Lot 7, Concession 3 East of Yonge Street and shown as Part 1 on Sketch prepared by Toronto Engineering & Construction Services, No. PS-2017-023 dated March 31, 2017 in the City of Toronto, be conveyed to the City of Toronto; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00; all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this conveyance or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigation measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of City of Toronto; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by City of Toronto prior to the commencement of construction; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of City of Toronto; THAT said conveyance be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; 534 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A192/17 - TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL Request for Permanent Easement for a Stormwater Pond Outfall Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River Watershed, CFN 57528. Receipt of a request from DG Group and the Town of Richmond Hill to provide an easement required for a new stormwater pond outfall, located north of Stouffville Road and west of Leslie Street, municipally known as 940 Stouffville Road, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res.#B91/17) Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from DG Group and the Town of Richmond Hill for a permanent easement required for a new stormwater pond outfall, located north of Stouffville Road and west of Leslie Street, municipally known as 940 Stouffville Road, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with DG Group and Town of Richmond Hill in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.17 hectares (0.43 acres), more or less, of vacant land, be granted in favour of the Town of Richmond Hill, said lands being Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, and designated as Part 1 on draft Plan created on April 20, 2017 by Holding Jones Vanderveen Inc., in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York; THAT consideration be the sum of $350,000; all legal, appraisal, survey and other costs to be paid by DG Group; THAT DG Group and the Town of Richmond Hill is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this conveyance or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigation measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of DG Group; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by the DG Group prior to the commencement of construction; 535 THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of the DG Group; THAT said conveyance be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A193/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT Section II items 10.2.1 – 10.2.3, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/17, held on October 13, 2017, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 10.2.1 – 10.2.3, Inclusive ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA BEACH CENTRE PROJECT (Executive Res.#B92/17) TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - KENNEDY VALLEY TRAIL, SOUTH ETOBICOKE SHERWAY GARDEN TRAIL AND VALLEYWOOD PHASE 2 (Executive Res.#B93/17) HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA PROJECT (Executive Res.#B94/17) ______________________________ 536 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A194/17 - CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED PLAN UPDATE Completion of Phase 1. Region of Durham approval of the completion of Phase 1 of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan. Moved by: Kevin Ashe Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick WHEREAS Phase 1 of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan has been completed through joint oversight of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Region of Durham staff; AND WHEREAS the technical reports prepared by TRCA, the independent peer review report, and the update on Phase 1 prepared by Region staff were approved by Durham Region Committee of the Whole on October 4, 2017; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff was directed to update Durham Region Committee of the Whole prior to reporting to the Authority about progress on the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the report on completion of Phase 1 of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND On April 1, 2015 Durham Region Council authorised staff to engage Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in a consulting capacity to update the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan on the Region’s behalf. At Authority Meeting #6/15, held on June 26, 2015, Resolution #A106/15 was approved as follows: WHEREAS the Region of Durham has requested Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to complete a watershed plan update for Carruthers Creek watershed; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA work with the Region of Durham, and in consultation with the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax, to complete an integrated watershed plan for Carruthers Creek; THAT TRCA staff be directed to enter into a service agreement with the Region of Durham to complete the watershed plan; THAT staff be directed to take such actions as necessary to develop an integrated watershed plan, including obtaining approvals, signing and execution of documents, and hiring consultants; THAT staff report on progress of the watershed planning process to the Authority annually, or more frequently as need arises, and at the completion of the watershed plan; THAT the Region of Durham, City of Pickering and Town of Ajax be so advised by the CEO's Office. 537 THAT staff report back after Phase I is complete. Following the initial resolution for staff to complete the watershed plan, Authority Resolution #A139/16 regarding Carruthers Creek watershed lands and the provincial Greenbelt necessitated the Authority’s confirmation to the Region of Durham that TRCA staff would complete the watershed plan based solely on the field work conducted in support of the new watershed plan and best available science. Therefore, at Authority Meeting #8/16, held on October 28, 2016, Resolution #A169/16 was approved as follows: WHEREAS amended Resolution #A139/16 of the Authority asking the Province of Ontario to designate headwaters in the Carruthers Creek as Greenbelt is seen by the Region of Durham to either negate the need for a watershed plan update or potentially bias the ability of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to undertake a comprehensive and fair analysis of any potential land use changes; AND WHEREAS the timing of any decision by the Province concerning potential expansion of the Greenbelt is uncertain; AND WHEREAS any future land use planning decisions are likely to require a watershed planning context; AND WHEREAS the role of TRCA is to provide information, analysis and management recommendations for the Carruthers watershed to assist the Region of Durham with its consideration of planning and infrastructure decisions as well as protection of the Region’s natural heritage and water resources; AND WHEREAS the purpose of the watershed plan update is to not only provide the analysis of potential implications and opportunities associated with possible land use changes but also to identify important restoration and stewardship priorities within both developed and undeveloped parts of the watershed both now and into the future; AND WHEREAS TRCA and the Region of Durham staff team have agreed to move forward with joint oversight and additional provisions such as: a) An external peer review by a reviewer satisfactory to the Region; and b) Updates to the Region's Committee of the Whole prior to TRCA staff reporting to the Authority; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA assure the Region of Durham of its ongoing commitment to provide the best possible advice to assist the Region with its challenging responsibilities about growth management and environmental stewardship; THAT TRCA is committed to undertaking the watershed study in a manner that exceeds the standard of practice, and is supportive of the staff recommendation to undertake an external peer review and regular reporting to the Region’s Committee of the Whole; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority expresses their support for continuing the work of the watershed plan and the role of science in informing future actions by all parties that will benefit the Carruthers watershed. 538 On October 4, 2017, in consideration of report #2017-COW-218 which presented TRCA’s peer reviewed technical work as the outcome of the first phase of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, Durham Region Committee of the Whole made the following recommendations to Regional Council: A) That the Phase 1 Technical Reports prepared for the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Update be received; and B) That a copy of Report #2017-COW-218 of the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development, including the Phase 1 Technical Reports, be provided to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Town of Ajax, and the City of Pickering for their information and comment. The Region’s approval of the Phase 1 report marked the completion of the first phase of the watershed plan. RATIONALE Per the Authority’s direction from October 2016 for a revised reporting process for TRCA staff, the technical reports which were the outcome of Phase 1 of the watershed plan were submitted to Durham Region for approval as follows: 1. Aquatic Crossing and Barrier Assessment Report; 2. Aquatic Habitat and Community Characterization Report; 3. Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment Report; 4. Headwater Drainage Features Report; 5. Hydrogeology Report; 6. Surface Water Quality Characterization Report; and 7. Terrestrial Natural Heritage Report. All seven technical reports were subjected to an external peer review under the supervision of a third party peer review advisor. Subject matter experts were assigned by the advisor as peer reviewers for each of the technical reports. The technical reports underwent an iterative process of external review and staff revisions until the reports were deemed acceptable by the respective peer reviewer(s). The peer review advisor reported directly to Durham Region Planning staff on the outcome of the review process. Overall, the peer review was a strong endorsement of the high calibre of TRCA’s technical work. The technical reports may be viewed online at https://trca.ca/conservation/watershed-management/carruthers-creek/projects-plans/. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan is a four year project with a total budget of $1,089,431, funded by the Region of Durham through a service agreement with TRCA. 539 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff is now in the early stages of Phase 2 of the watershed planning process. The second phase is expected to be two years long and include flood line mapping, groundwater modelling, hydrology modelling, urban forestry studies and terrestrial natural heritage system mapping. TRCA and Durham Region staff will work with staff from the City of Pickering and Town of Ajax as Phase 2 progresses. An integration exercise to synthesise the technical analyses from the individual studies, as well as stakeholder and public consultation, and writing of the final plan will also occur. Report prepared by: Gary Bowen, 416-271-8944; Maryam Nassar, extension 5937 Emails: gbowen@trca.on.ca; mnassar@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Bowen, 416-271-8944; Maryam Nassar, extension 5937 Emails: gbowen@trca.on.ca; mnassar@trca.on.ca Date: September 27, 2017 ______________________________ 540 RES.#A195/17- HUMBER RIVER HYDROLOGIC SIMULATION PROGRAM FORTRAN MODEL UPDATE An information update on the Humber River Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN model results to simulate water quality in Humber Bay and evaluate the potential of various landform structures to achieve Blue Flag beach certification at Sunnyside Beach. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the staff report dated October 17, 2017 on the results of a study to update the Humber River Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN (HSPF) model be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) adopted by City of Toronto Council in 2003 identified the potential for a 1 km long landform at the mouth of the Humber River, combined with upstream stormwater management measures, to sufficiently improve water quality conditions at Sunnyside Beach to meet Blue Flag beach certification. At Authority Meeting #5/12, held on June 22, 2012, Resolution #A94/12 directed staff to lead an environmental assessment (EA) study to consider a Humber Bay landform in collaboration with City of Toronto. In 2014, TRCA and City staff began a Scoping Study to inform the framework for an EA in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act to evaluate structures at the mouth of the Humber River. The HSPF model is a key technical component of the Scoping Study. Therefore, at Executive Committee Meeting #11/13, held on January 17, 2014, Resolution #B170/13 was approved, in part, as follows: THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a preferred source engineering contract be awarded to XCG Consultants to complete a data review and undertake the Humber River Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN Model update as required, at a total cost not to exceed $99,225.00, plus HST; At Executive Committee Meeting #11/13, the Members also directed staff to report back on the results of the HSPF model study, including any changes in baseline data and resulting implications. RATIONALE TRCA retained the services of XCG Consultants Limited to undertake an update of the HSPF model to simulate discharge (flowrate and E.coli density) from the Humber River into Lake Ontario, under a number of land use and stormwater management scenarios. The HSPF model simulation results were then supplied to the City of Toronto to be used as inputs to the City operated waterfront hydrodynamic model (waterfront model). These results were used to confirm previous modeling carried out during the WWFMP, which previously indicated that future watershed based stormwater controls combined with a landform at the mouth of the Humber River would improve water quality at Sunnyside Beach to allow for Blue Flag beach certification (i.e. At no more than 20% of sampling dates, shall water quality exceed Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change standard for E.Coli). 541 XCG’s workplan was undertaken in three phases. Phase 1 included the collection and review of existing, as well as future conditions (i.e. land use and stormwater management) within the Humber River Watershed. Phase 1 resulted in the conclusion that an update of the Humber HSPF model was warranted. The HSPF model update included: Land-use representation using GIS land cover mapping supplied by TRCA in 2014. Simulated combined-sewer overflow (CSO) discharges received by Black Creek and Humber River within Toronto based on outputs from the InfoWorksCS sewer system models developed by the City for its Basement Flooding Areas 3,4,5 and 6 (simulations completed as part of the WWFMP used the now outdated, City “QQS” model for CSO discharges). Improved calibration of the HSPF model based on bacteriological and flow data from the Humber River, generated since 2003 and collected from Wet Weather Flow Tributary Monitory Study; Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network; Water Survey of Canada gauges; Environment Canada air temperature stations; and TRCA rain gauges. Phase 2 included HSPF model simulations under five land use and stormwater management scenarios. The various scenarios are as follows: Scenario Land Use and Stormwater Management CSO Discharges E1 Existing Existing sewer system CSO discharge E2 Existing Conform to MOE CC procedure F-5-5* E3 Existing Zero CSO discharges F1 Full build-out with conventional stormwater management within new development areas and with implementation of the WWFMP 25-year plan within City of Toronto Conform to MOE CC procedure F-5-5 F2 Full build-out with conventional stormwater management within new development areas and with implementation of the WWFMP 25-year plan within City of Toronto Zero CSO discharge * Capture and treat for average year all dry weather flows plus 90% of the volume resulting from wet weather. For each of the scenarios, HSPF model runs were carried out by applying the precipitation record for 1991 (typical year), 2007 (notably dry year) and 2008 (notably wet year), in order to assess the outcomes over a range of conditions. The typical year closely aligns with the Environment Canada 30 year average, based on data from 1981 to 2010. Phase 3 concluded with a review of City generated, waterfront model simulation results for water quality at Sunnyside Beach. The waterfront model runs included eight landform inputs produced by W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Limited (Baird) in consultation with TRCA and City staff. The multiple landform concepts differed in orientation (perpendicular and parallel to shore), length (500 to 1700 metres) and form (continuous, shore-connected and island chain). The waterfront model simulation results concluded that: The model simulations show the correlation between precipitation patterns and the resultant water quality at Sunnyside Beach. 542 Absent a landform, beach posting rates are above the 20% Blue Flag beach certification threshold under all scenarios. Beach posting rates range from 21.8% (Scenario F2, 2007) to 55% (Scenario E1, 2008). Under a notably wet year (2008) Blue Flag beach certification is not achieved. Beach posting rates range from 25.9% to 70%. Under a notably dry year (2007) Blue Flag beach certification is achieved with confidence, under all land use/stormwater management scenarios, with multiple landform concepts. Beach posting results ranged from 10% to 18.5%, with the 1000 to 1500 metre, shore-connected and continuous landform concepts performing best. Even without a landform, a notably dry year under future land use/stormwater management scenarios nearly achieved Blue Flag beach certification (21.8% Scenario F2 and 23.9% Scenario F1). Under the typical year (1991) Blue Flag beach certification is achieved under the following scenarios, however within less than 1% of the threshold: Scenario E1, E2 and E3 with a 1500 metre, shore-connected and continuous landform. Beach positing results range from 19.3% to 19.8%. Scenario E3 with a 1000 metre, shore-connected and continuous landform. The beach posting result was 19.7%. Scenario F1 with a 1500 metre, shore-connected and continuous landform. The beach posting result was 19.8%. Scenario F2, with a 500, 1000, or 1500 metre, shore-connected, and continuous landform. The beach posting results were 19.8%, 19.7% and 19.1%, respectively. Estimated costs of the landform concepts that resulted in the most improvement to water quality (e.g. 1000 metre and 1500 metre, shore-connected and continuous landform) were provided by Baird to evaluate the cost versus anticipated benefits of the landform. The cost of the most effective landform concepts for comparison purposes are in the range of $113 million to $212 million (exclusive of HST, contingency, maintenance, inflation, habitat compensation and other related regulatory expenses). As the waterfront model simulations under various scenarios do not demonstrate significant improvements, if any, in water quality conditions, it was determined that the projected capital construction costs and risk inherent with proceeding with a landform structure at the mouth of the Humber River was not justified. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the work was provided by the City of Toronto and tracked through account number 212-01. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE City staff have informed TRCA that based on the results of the Scoping Study, the project will not proceed to the EA phase at this time. Staff will work with City staff to complete a final report and investigate other options to realize water quality improvements to achieve Blue Flag certification at Sunnyside Beach. Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: kdion@trca.on.ca Date: October 17, 2017 ______________________________ 543 RES.#A196/17 - GOOD NEWS STORIES Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority activities from July through September 2017. Moved by: Kevin Ashe Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT the summary of Good News Stories from July through September 2017 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As per Authority direction during 2006, a report covering highlights of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) activities is provided to the Authority quarterly. The stories for from July through September 2016 are as follows: Summer TRCA has completed construction of a new bridge within Boyd Conservation Area that is now open to the public. Since 2013, access across the Humber River has been maintained by a temporary bridge structure. This project involved removing the temporary bridge and the low-level water crossing from the 1950's that failed following the July 2013 storm event. In partnership with the City of Toronto, the East Don Trail Environmental Assessment was approved. The trail will make a critical connection in the City's multi-use trail network between the north end of Charles Sauriol Conservation Area, the Gatineau Trail and the Lower Don Trail system. The City has secured federal Public Transit Infrastructure funding to support implementation. CIPEC, a voluntary government-industry partnership managed by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Office of Energy Efficiency has invited Partners in Project Green to sit on its Advisory Board for its bi-annual Energy Summit. The conference brings together the country's leading energy subject-matter experts, industry leaders and energy efficiency suppliers, to share best practices and latest innovations in industrial energy efficiency. TRCA's three field centres hosted 3,200 day campers and 325 overnight campers this summer. TRCA, Durham Mountain Biking Association (DMBA), Green Durham Association (GDA) and Oak Ridges Trail Association (ORTA) hosted The Great Trail Celebration at the East Duffins Headwaters properties, part of a national day of celebration of the full connection of The Great Trail (formerly known as The Trans Canada Trail), on August 26, 2017. Approximately 90 people participated in guided mountain bike rides, guided hikes, a free lunch and learning at booths from DMBA, GDA, ORTA, Township of Uxbridge Recreation and TRCA. Canada Day Events: Black Creek attendance hit record numbers over the Canada day weekend with an attendance of 9,400; Caledon Canada Day at Albion Hills Conservation Area saw approximately 11,000 in attendance; The City of Vaughan reported 25,000 in attendance on Canada Day at Boyd Conservation Area. Due to onsite training and the emergency action plan at Petticoat Creek, lifeguards and staff worked together to save a life in a near-drowning incident. Albion Hills Conservation Area played host to the 6th annual Mud Hero Event with 11,137 participants taking place in the race. Black Creek Pioneer Village partnered with their local neighbours to bring RastaFest, Canada’s largest celebration of Rastafarian culture and heritage, back to the Jane and Finch community. 544 The Living City Foundation received a $25,000.00 donation from Precise ParkLink and a $125,000.00 donation from Alfredo Romano from Castlepoint Numa for the Black Creek Fundraising Campaign, as well as a $5,000 donation from Greenwin Inc. for the Black Creek education program. Partners in Project Green has surpassed registration targets for this year's Recycling Collection Drive, with 30 locations participating so far. The Girls Can Too (GCT) program provided hands on building and eco-learning opportunities to more than 60 young women at the Bolton Camp site during July and August 2017. Funded by TD Friends of the Environment, Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund grants and local partners such as Bolton Kinsmen and Caledon Leadership Forum for Women, the young women planted 160 trees/shrubs and 400 native wildflowers, built 24 vertical garden structures, built 10 benches using repurposed abated ash trees, as well as participated in a variety of workshops guided by female professionals. Two least bitterns were discovered nesting in the restored wetlands at Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) over the summer. Least bittern is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. On August 7th a hatch-year least bittern was captured and banded by the TTP Bird Research Station near the location of one of the nests; the strongest evidence we have to suggest at least one of the nests was successful. September TRCA hosted the first fee for service paddling event at Lake St. George Field Centre, the first of many planned fee for service events. Since transforming TRCA’s education field centres into community engagement hubs, staff is using a new integrated learning model to increase the value of these public assets and facilities, while also diversifying the revenue stream from TRCA’s traditional education model. Photos of TRCA's Embayment D Wetland Enhancement Project at Tommy Thompson Park were selected to be shown at the international Society of Ecological Restoration conference in Brazil. The photos are in the running to win a prize in the Restoration Before/After category. Embayment D was completed by the Restoration Projects group in 2014 in partnership with Ports Toronto. Environmental Monitoring and Data section successfully procured, built and launched its newest research vessel "RV Ken Higgs". Sea trials were successful and the vessel has a full schedule over the next two months finishing waterfront monitoring projects. TRCA had a paper accepted to the Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management journal as part of a special issue on the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP), detailing the use of an index of connectivity to look at how barrier mitigation projects have improved stream connectivity for resident and migratory species since the inception of the RAP. Results show greater improvement for migratory rather than resident species and that connectivity has improved to the greatest degree in the Don and Rouge watersheds. Integrated Restoration Prioritization framework paper to be published in a Aquatic Ecosystem Management Journal Special Issue. The Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC) and Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan (SNAP) were selected by Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's Partners for Climate Action branch to lead a project on developing a home energy efficiency program evaluation as part of the West Bolton SNAP in Caledon. Program evaluation by academic partners in the OCC network was a key component of the proposed project and total funding awarded is $180,000. 545 OCC, along with Clean Air Partnership and the Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR), was selected to be Ontario’s Regional Facilitator of the Partners in Climate Protection (PCP) program. OCC will be supporting coaching Ontario municipalities through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ PCP framework for climate action planning. It is a four year program with funding around $80,000 across partners. TRCA hosted provincial flood forecasting and warning conference. Secured $8,500 through the Markham Environmental Sustainability Fund to deliver a pollinator program for seniors at the Markham Museum. The program will bring seniors on a field trip to plant wildflowers and create pollinator habitat. TRCA will build capacity at the museum by installing raised flower beds, a bee house and producing educational signage. TRCA partnered with the City of Toronto to deliver Canada 150 "MomenTO by Canoe" celebrations on the Rouge and Humber rivers that were attended by over 4,500 people. Based on overwhelmingly positive feedback, TRCA has been asked to consider running annual Rouge River and Humber River canoeing events. Interpretive kayaking tours were held along the Humber River and around Tommy Thompson Park as part of a new pilot kayaking program. Toronto Ravine Strategy has been approved by the City of Toronto Executive Committee. Conservation Authorities Act service delivery review team had its first meeting on how conservation authorities legislation may change. Bill 139 passed through 2nd reading at Legislature. Provincial staff acknowledged TRCA’s recommendations on enforcement legislation. Successful Lake Ontario Evening featuring Toronto Water as part of the RAP program. Toronto Water was pleased to announce their signature waterfront projects are underway. FCM requested staff to deliver SNAP training session at the 2018 National Sustainable Communities Conference, as they believe TRCA's SNAP initiatives are among Canada's best examples of how municipalities can retrofit neighbourhoods and they want to spread the practice to other municipalities. SNAP's community animation efforts are paying off: When SNAP began working in County Court in Brampton, there were no social networks, however a neighbourhood improvement leadership group has established; 450 residents of this neighbourhood attended the annual eco-festival, and 80 people signed up for DIY home energy parties. Weston Foundation has invited us to submit a proposal for $25,000/year for three years for the Monarch Teacher’s Network program. Open Information and Data policy was approved, and the website www.trca.ca/open is now live. Improving access to TRCA’s data and information will provide transparency into the decision making process and will improve accountability while increasing the public’s understanding and engagement with the organization. Staff hosted a tour with the Region of York's Commissioner of Environmental Services at a TRCA managed construction site to protect critical sewer infrastructure from erosion along Patterson Creek. This highlighted the benefits of the TRCA/Region of York partnership program to monitor and protect Region assets and reinforced the significance of this work within our changing climate. Wrapping up anaerobic digestion system recruitment project with Molson-Coors. GTAA Feasibility study to begin in 2018. Region of Peel off-peak delivery transportation project for east-west industrial/commercial corridor completed. Received funding from Independent Electricity System Operator for water efficiency cluster to position long-term funding across urbanized municipalities in Ontario. Fifth annual dragon boat festival had 11 teams, with IBM Blue Agile Finance being the overall fastest team and TRCA came second in their division. 546 Black Creek Community Farm, along with TRCA and other partners hosted a successful fundraising dinner event which featured local food from the farm and local chefs. The event raised $15,000 which will go toward supporting the farm operation. Kortright Visitors Centre is now connected to municipal water having been serviced by well water for over 35 years. Black Creek Pioneer Village hydro service was fully restored after running on generator for a full year. The inaugural Great Lakes Water Walk, supported by TRCA among others, had over 1,000 people join in a traditional Anishinaabe ceremony to celebrate and recognize the importance of water. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: October 5, 2017 ______________________________ Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A197/17 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Paul Ainslie THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended item 10.3, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/17, held on October 13, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:28 a.m., on Friday, October 27, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer 547 Authority Meeting #9/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, November 17, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Kevin Ashe Member Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ron Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Jennifer Drake Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Brenda Hogg Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Matt Mahoney Member Jim Tovey Member RES.#A198/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT the Minutes of Meeting #8/17, held on October 27, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 548 PRESENTATIONS 5.1 A presentation by Glenn Sheppard, Vice President, Marsh Canada Limited, in regard to item 8.1 - Insurance and Risk Management. RES.#A199/17 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT above-noted presentation 5.1 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 549 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A200/17 - HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC. Request for Permanent Easement Required for Leaside x Main Infrastructure Refurbishment Project City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 58789. Receipt of a request from Hydro One Networks Inc., for a permanent easement required for Leaside x Main Infrastructure Refurbishment Project located north of the Don Valley Parkway and east of Leaside Bridge, in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Kevin Ashe WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Hydro One Networks Inc. for a permanent easement required for Leaside x Main Infrastructure Refurbishment Project, located north of the Don Valley Parkway and east of Leaside Bridge, in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Hydro One Networks Inc. in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.119 hectares (0.294 acres), more or less, of vacant land, required for Leaside x Main Infrastructure Refurbishment Project, being Parts of Lots 11 and 12, Concession 3 FTB, designated as Parts 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 on draft reference plan prepared by Stantec Geomatics Ltd., project no: 161660520, job no:Y2-52, HONI Plan No: L99998 DZS 10162 7308, in the City of Toronto, be conveyed to Hydro One Networks Inc.; THAT consideration be the sum of $242,665.13, all legal, appraisal, survey and other costs to be paid by Hydro One Networks Inc.; THAT Hydro One Networks Inc. is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this conveyance or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigation measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of Hydro One Networks Inc.; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan will be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines, at the expense of Hydro One Networks Inc.; THAT said conveyance be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; 550 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Hydro One Networks Inc. has requested a permanent easement across TRCA-owned lands required for Leaside x Main Infrastructure Refurbishment Project located north of the Don Valley Parkway and east of Leaside Bridge, in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed. The Leaside x Main Infrastructure Refurbishment Project proposes to replace the existing aging 115kV underground transmission cables between Leaside transformer station and Todmorden junction over a distance of approximately 0.8 kilometres. The underground cable replacement section is scheduled to start as soon as TRCA’s approval is obtained. Hydro One Networks Inc. is planning to undertake the work during the winter months in order to minimize the impacts on the public trail system. Hydro One Network Inc. has submitted a voluntary review package. Hydro One Network Inc. is an agency of the Province of Ontario and is not subject to Ontario Regulation 166/06. TRCA’s Environmental Assessment Planning staff has reviewed Hydro One Network Inc.’s submission and has no concerns. Plantings All lands disturbed by construction will be stabilized and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, revegetated with native woody and herbaceous plant material in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines. A landscape plan will be prepared with input from TRCA and City of Toronto Urban Forestry as part of the voluntary review application submission. The subject TRCA-owned lands were acquired from Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on March 10, 1983 under the Don River Flood Plain Land Project. Attached is a sketch illustrating the location of the permanent easement. FINANCIAL DETAILS The easement compensation is based on market value as determined by Altus Group Limited. Hydro One Networks Inc. has agreed to assume all legal, survey and other costs involved in completing this transaction. Funds obtained from this permanent easement will be utilized for the purchase of priority properties under the Greenlands Acquisition Project. Report prepared by: Edlyn Wong, extension 5711 Emails: ewong@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Edlyn Wong, extension 5711, Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: ewong@trca.on.ca, mfenning@trca.on.ca Date: October 30, 2017 Attachments: 1 551 PAP E A V E DONLAN D S A V E MIL L W O O D R D L E A S I D E B R I D G E ")DVP 0 50 10025 Meters F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its lic ensors. [2017] May Not be Reproduc ed without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend Permanent Eastment Waterc ourses ! ! ! ! ! !Floodline Regulation Limit TRCA Property Parc el Assessment # PermanentEasement D o n R i v e r ^SITE Attachment 1 552 RES.#A201/17 - RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ASSET MAPPING Contract #10006582 - Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance. Award of contract for data consulting services to map and analyze agri-food and manufacturing assets. Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT Contract #10006582 for data consulting services for the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance (GHFFA) be awarded on a preferred source basis to 4DM Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $130,000, plus 10% contingency, plus HST, to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff; THAT the contract be subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and, as necessary, solicitor; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance, working through TRCA as its operating agent, in partnership with the Economic Development Officers in Golden Horseshoe municipalities and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, including Region of Niagara, City of Hamilton, Region of Halton, Region of Peel, City of Toronto, Region of York, Region of Durham, Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation and TRCA, wishes to continue to collect data in order to inventory and map the assets of the agriculture and food sector in the Golden Horseshoe. In 2013, GHFFA launched the development of the Agrifood Asset Mapping Database in order to inventory and map the assets of the agriculture and food sector in the Golden Horseshoe. By developing the map of producers, processors, distributors and marketing infrastructure, the value of this sector in the area will be clearly demonstrated in relation to the provincial economy. In addition, gaps that exist within the food and farming infrastructure can be identified through synthesis of the information. These gaps create barriers to growth and once identified will be used to develop and implement strategies to strengthen and grow the food and farming cluster of the Golden Horseshoe. Following the successful implementation of the Agrifood Asset Mapping Database across 36 regional municipalities, counties and cities across the Province of Ontario, the Manufacturing consortium consisting of 31 jurisdictions led by Economic Development Council of Ontario (EDCO) was formed to collect data in a similar manner for manufacturing. The data collected is from a variety of sources including municipal employment surveys and business listings, and it is open and “real time” as this data is collected on an annual basis. Overtime, it has become evident that the two databases (Agrifood Asset Mapping and EDCO Manufacturing databases) should be joined and offered as an economic development tool kit to interested municipalities. This will result in an economic development tool that will assist economic development practitioners to further understand and analyze the sectors and interconnectedness between sectors, develop investment attraction and business expansion, to name a few. Synergies would be realized and ultimately costs could be reduced as access to the database is licensed to a larger number of municipalities. This work will: 553 Make modifications to the databases and web services to accommodate both databases; Establish protocols for participation and access; Testing of the data logic model, interfaces, coding and processing; Development of a governance model; Development of a business case resulting in long-terms sustainability; Reporting and analysis of results; and Building collaboration and integration along the value chain or cluster. In addition, the Rural Economic Development Project Asset Mapping aligns with Action #3 from the GHFFA Food and Farming: An Action Plan 2021: “Develop solutions to close gaps in the infrastructure required to support the food and farming industry.” RATIONALE 4DM Inc. is being recommended as the contractor to develop the RED Asset Mapping Database as they have been working effectively with the GHFFA, steering committee and project partners on the Agrifood Asset Mapping Databases since 2013. 4DM Inc. has an established track record of delivering on commitments. 4DM Inc. has intimate knowledge and expertise around data models, tools, and processes and construction of complex databases so it is cost effective to retain 4DM Inc. as this work is an extension of the current Agrifood Mapping work. In addition, 4DM Inc. has been working with EDCO on developing their Manufacturing database, thus possess familiarity with both databases which will be merged ultimately. Therefore, staff is recommending that Contract # 10006582 be awarded to 4DM Inc. at a total upset cost not to exceed $130,000, plus HST, plus a contingency allowance of 10% to be spent if deemed necessary by TRCA staff, on a preferred source basis as per Section 9.3 of TRCA’s Purchasing Policy as follows: The required goods and services are to be supplied by a vendor or supplier having specialized knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be reasonably provided by any other supplier. FINANCIAL DETAILS Costs are fully recoverable from Economic Developers Council of Ontario Incorporated, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and RED Funding, in account 620-70. Report prepared by: Lauren Garrard, extension 5292; Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: lauren.garrard@trca.on.ca, sdhir@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney@trca.on.ca Date: November 7, 2017 ______________________________ 554 RES.#A202/17 - ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY Approval of the Asset Management Policy to establish an organization-wide asset management framework that directs and enables coordinated and sustainable management of assets owned or managed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Asset Management Policy as outlined in Attachment 1 be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the Asset Management Policy be reviewed by staff on a regular basis to ensure that it is in keeping with TRCA’s local and regional municipal partners’ asset management practices. CARRIED BACKGROUND With ownership of over 18,000 hectares of land, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has established an impressive network of greenspace and created a legacy of buildings and infrastructure that supports TRCA’s watershed management activities, as well as recreation and education programs. TRCA’s tangible asset portfolio includes erosion protection works and flood control infrastructure; trails and park amenities; recreational and educational centres; staff administration offices; tenanted homes and historic buildings that contribute to quality of life in the Toronto region. In compliance with the Tangible Capital Asset Policy, TRCA has been consistently recording and reporting on TRCA’s asset portfolio as required by the Public Sector Accounting Board Section PS 3150 since January 1, 2009. The reported net book value as of December 31, 2016 (estimated value with depreciation) of TRCA’s tangible capital assets is over $451 million, as summarized below. Situated in the largest urban centre in Canada, TRCA’s sizable portfolio of assets are especially subject to wear and tear due to high levels of use and the impacts caused by a growing and intensifying population. Such pressure is compounded by more commonly occurring extreme weather events of a changing climate that can cause considerable damage and the need for costly remediation. As evidenced by the increase in major repairs and replacements undertaken by TRCA in recent years to address failing infrastructure, a sound and proactive approach to the management TRCA assets is critical to the sustainability of TRCA’s operations and corporate integrity. Table 1. Tangible Capital Assets Owned by TRCA 2016 Net Book Value Land $346,937,087 Land Improvements $8,949,055 Buildings $29,310,134 Equipment and machinery $5,356,278 Vehicles $1,405,648 Infrastructure $48,515,526 Total $451,418,680 555 RATIONALE Although asset management plans are not currently a legislated requirement for conservation authorities, member municipalities are encouraging TRCA to undertake comprehensive asset management planning to support requests for municipal capital funding. Asset management plans provide a systematic process that guides decision making related to the planning, acquisition, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and disposal of assets. Undertaking these plans will allow TRCA to achieve desired levels of service and compliance with regulatory requirements in the most cost effective manner, enable better integration with municipal funding partners’ capital planning process and help to minimize unexpected requests for capital. TRCA’s Asset Management Policy is the first step toward initiating an asset management program to efficiently manage TRCA assets, while providing satisfactory levels of service to the public, and ensuring the sustainability of TRCA land and infrastructure to meet the demands of the future. This program will ensure long-term maintenance and true life cycle costing are effectively planned and will assure funding municipalities that their investment in TRCA lands, facilities and infrastructure is protected and that their residents continue to benefit from TRCA programs and services. In keeping with the direction from the Ontario Minister of Infrastructure to municipalities, TRCA has prepared the Asset Management Policy (Attachment 1) to outline the principles that will inform TRCA’s future asset management program. While limited legislation and policy guidance is available for a TRCA Asset Management Policy, it is informed by emerging provincial directions, the asset management work of member municipalities, TRCA’s own corporate strategies, policies and objectives, as well as decades of experience in managing assets for the betterment of communities, both human and natural, in the Toronto region. FINANCIAL DETAILS Operating funds are available to support the preparation of the Asset Management Strategy in account 006-02. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA’s Asset Management Policy sets the framework for the preparation of an Asset Management Strategy in 2018. This Strategy will define asset management objectives and desired levels of service, in keeping with the asset categories defined by TRCA’s Tangible Capital Asset Policy as outlined in Table 1. Specifically, this Strategy will: Define TRCA responsibilities related to asset management; Outline long term goals, processes and steps TRCA will take to deliver optimized life cycle costing and priority setting for assets; Establish a work plan and schedule for: the preparation of and updates to asset management plans; reporting on state of good repair; and performance of assets and work related to asset management. 556 Following preparation of the Strategy, asset management plans will be developed to identify long term goals, processes and steps to deliver optimized whole lifecycle cost for TRCA’s assets based on current inventories and condition assessments, projected performance and remaining service life and consequences of failures. These plans will also include guidelines and processes towards developing a sustainable financial plan that considers risk and financial requirements and impacts on levels of service. Asset management plans will be operationalized by implementing an annual plan of scheduled activities to maintain state of good repair through ongoing proactive maintenance, repairs, end-of-life replacement or retirement. Report prepared by: Almolah Sakir, extension 5764 Emails: almolah.sakir@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: lstephenson@trca.on.ca Date: November 2, 2017 Attachments: 1 557 Attachment 1 Asset Management Policy TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................................................ 3 3. SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 4. POLICY STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 4 4.1. Principles.................................................................................................................................................. 4 4.2. Asset Management Strategy ...................................................................................................... 5 4.3. Asset Management Plans ........................................................................................................... 5 4.4. State of Good Repair Reports .................................................................................................... 5 4.5 TRCA Organizational Responsibilities ..................................................................................... 6 5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................................ 6 6. DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Category Operational and Corporate Internal Policies that Have Significant Implications or are of Interest to Special Groups Approved by Authority Approval date (last amendment) November 17 2017 Approval resolution (if applicable) Eg. A5/16 Responsible Business Unit (Who Authored) TRCA Tangible Asset Management Committee Responsible program manager (For Implementation) Mike Fenning, Associate Director, Property and Risk Management Ext. 5223 mfenning@trca.on.ca Review Cycle 5 Years Date Required by: 17/11/2022 558 TRCA Asset Management Policy Page 2 PREFACE The Ministry of Infrastructure defines asset management planning as the process of making the best possible decisions regarding the building, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing and disposing of assets. While there is limited regulatory and procedural guidance directed at conservation authorities for asset management beyond Public Sector Accounting Board standards, many of the resources becoming available to municipalities are a useful starting point. The Ontario government has mandated that municipalities establish asset management plans to ensure their eligibility for infrastructure funding. Launched in 2012, the Municipal Infrastructure Strategy requires municipalities who request infrastructure funding to prioritize their needs by showing how projects fit within an asset management plan. To help municipalities prepare asset management plans, the Province released, “Building Together: A Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans” (Building Together) as part of an online asset management toolkit. Building Together states that asset management takes a long term perspective in order to maximize benefits and help recognize when to make timely investments that align with other objectives and conserve resources. Similarly, the Province’s recently amended Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe directs municipalities to consider new infrastructure investments, not in isolation, but in the context of an overall strategy. Under greenfield or redevelopment and intensification growth planning scenarios, the Growth Plan emphasizes asset management planning as an important component of a municipal comprehensive review required to support the establishment of new urban areas. The Growth Plan policies also state that as part of municipal asset management planning, municipalities will assess infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities, including those caused by the impacts of a changing climate, and identify actions and investments to address these challenges. The directions in the Growth Plan align with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, which states that infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change while accommodating projected needs, and that planning authorities should promote green infrastructure to complement infrastructure. This is also consistent with Building Together, which directs municipalities to undertake an options analysis that compares different actions that would enable assets to provide needed levels of service. And among the benefits and costs this analysis must consider, is vulnerability to climate change impacts or climate change adaptation. Further, it suggests to municipalities to use innovative technologies such as green infrastructure to “stretch capital dollars”. Building Together states that using the natural processes of green infrastructure reduces costly burdens on built infrastructure, while also generating benefits for our water, air, greenspace and natural habitats. TRCA’s Strategic Plan as well as TRCA’s policy document, The Living City Policies, recognize and describe how built forms of green infrastructure can increase the resilience of natural green infrastructure and extend the life of many types of traditional infrastructure under stress from extreme weather events. In addition to working with partners to protect the natural green systems in our watersheds, TRCA strives to incorporate built green infrastructure into its own facilities and promotes incorporating it into proposed and existing communities. In 2017, the government posted for comment on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry, a proposed municipal asset management regulation. The Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity 559 TRCA Asset Management Policy Page 3 Act (2016) includes an authority for the Province to regulate municipal asset management planning. The purpose of the proposed regulation is to implement best practices throughout the municipal sector and provide a degree of consistency to support collaboration among municipalities, and between municipalities and the Province. The regulation would provide certainty around future provincial asset management planning requirements, and would be supported by the collection of selected data to capture the key aspects of municipal asset management of resilience and sustainability. The proposed regulation includes a requirement for green infrastructure to be a part of municipal asset management by 2022. As a major employer and service provider and an owner and operator of public facilities and lands, TRCA’s asset portfolio warrants a strategic and comprehensive asset management program. Given that the management of green infrastructure and the evaluation of green technologies are inherent to many of TRCA’s business functions, we can demonstrate leadership in the emerging requirement for green infrastructure to be a part of municipal asset management. From erosion protection works and flood control infrastructure to conservation areas, parks, heritage buildings, and LEED certified facilities, TRCA owns and manages assets critical to the protection of life and property and that contribute to quality of life in the Toronto region. Although asset management planning is not a legislated requirement for conservation authorities, member municipalities are encouraging TRCA to undertake comprehensive asset management planning to support requests for municipal capital funding. TRCA’s asset holdings are unique in that they largely constitute or support a natural landscape and manage dynamic natural systems, yet they are situated in the largest urban centre in Canada. As a result, TRCA assets are especially subject to wear and tear due to high levels of use by the growing and intensifying population. Such pressure is compounded by more commonly occurring extreme weather events of a changing climate that can cause considerable damage and the need for costly remediation. By ensuring the adequate management of TRCA assets through an asset management program, the long-term maintenance of these assets and true life cycle costing can be effectively planned. Additionally, funding municipalities can be assured that their investment in TRCA lands, facilities and infrastructure is protected and that their residents continue to benefit from our programs and services. The sound management of TRCA assets is critical to the sustainability of TRCA’s operations and corporate integrity. While limited legislation and policy guidance is available for a TRCA Asset Management Policy, it is informed by emerging provincial directions, the asset management work of our member municipalities, TRCA’s own corporate strategies, policies and objectives, as well as decades of experience in managing assets for the betterment of communities, both human and natural, in the Toronto region. 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Policy is to establish an organization-wide asset management framework that directs and enables coordinated and sustainable asset management practices. 2. AUTHORITY The Policy is provided on the basis of TRCA’s objects and powers under the Conservation Authorities Act and TRCA’s environmental, social and economic responsibility to its member municipalities and to the public to effectively manage its assets. The Policy is approved by TRCA’s board. On the advice of staff, the Authority may accept, revise or rescind the Policy. 560 TRCA Asset Management Policy Page 4 3. SCOPE 3.1 This Policy applies to the life cycle of assets, owned or managed by TRCA, which have a material impact on TRCA’s capital and/or operating budget. 3.2 The scope of the direction to staff as provided in the Asset Management Policy includes requirements to: inventory assets and assess their condition; monitor, evaluate and report on the performance of assets; set maintenance standards for assets; manage assets with a life cycle cost perspective, while meeting program requirements and user expectations; address risk to public safety and private properties, as applicable; prioritize the choices that must be made for the acquisition, development, use, maintenance, replacement, retirement and disposal of assets; plan for sustainable, long term funding to rehabilitate, replace or dispose of assets; ensure compliance with applicable codes, by-laws and legislative requirements. 4. POLICY STATEMENTS 4.1. Principles TRCA will manage assets to: Support TRCA’s Strategic Plan objectives; Seek opportunities to demonstrate the benefits of green infrastructure such as increasing asset resilience to climate change; Seek opportunities to incorporate green technologies; Optimize the total life cycle and the associated costs of assets; Maintain high quality levels of client and customer service; Define and articulate desired service, maintenance and replacement levels and outcomes; Identify and address risk associated with assets; Integrate financial, technical and business planning; Facilitate collaboration with stakeholders and other interested parties, where appropriate; Demonstrate transparency and accountability; Promote accessibility for persons with disabilities, where applicable; 561 TRCA Asset Management Policy Page 5 Be consistent with all applicable legislation, policies, regulations, memorandums of understanding and agreements. Continually improve its asset management approach, by driving innovation in the development of tools, practices, and solutions. 4.2. Asset Management Strategy Using the principles of this Asset Management Policy, TRCA will develop an Asset Management Strategy that will guide the development, implementation, and maintenance of individual Asset Management Plans. Specifically, this Strategy will: Define TRCA responsibilities related to asset management; Outline long term goals, processes and steps TRCA will take to deliver optimized life cycle costing and priority setting for assets; Establish a work plan and schedule for: o the preparation of and updates to Asset Management Plans in section 4.3; o reporting on State of Good Repair, in accordance with section 4.4; o performance of assets and work related to asset management. 4.3. Asset Management Plans For each TRCA asset management category, TRCA Asset Management Plans will be prepared in accordance with the Principles in section 4.1 and the Asset Management Strategy developed under section 4.2. Each TRCA Asset Management Plan will: Outline long term goals, processes and steps to deliver optimized whole life cycle cost; Be based on current inventories and conditions, projected performance and remaining service life, and consequences of failures; Outline guidelines and processes to developing a sustainable financial plan with understanding of risk and financial requirements and impacts on the levels of service. Outline opportunities to include green infrastructure in asset management planning in cooperation with municipalities and other TRCA partners, where applicable. 4.4. State of Good Repair Reports State of Good Repair (SGR) Reports shall be prepared and submitted to TRCA’s board. Specifically, SGRs will include: 562 TRCA Asset Management Policy Page 6 Entire life cycle and associated costs related to the assets, including risk of asset failure and deterioration forecasts; Risks to service level provision and risks of increased future financial burden; The financial viability of the options considered; Opportunities to fund required life cycle activities not yet undertaken. 4.5 TRCA Organizational Responsibilities Authority Approves the Asset Management Policy, Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plans Approves asset funding through the annual budget Receives State of Good Repair Reports Asset Management Committee Provides a forum across TRCA Business Units for discussion of asset management strategy, integration and best practices Leads the development of corporate asset management tools and practices and promotes their application across the organization Monitors the application of the Asset Management Policy, Strategy and for improving the same over time Makes recommendations with respect to implementation of asset management. Asset Managers (all TRCA staff responsible for management of assets) Implement Asset Management Strategy Prepare and implement Asset Management Plans Prepare State of Good Repair Reports Liaise with Asset Management Committee on strategy, integration and best practices TRCA Finance Provides financial direction TRCA Property Responsible for the stewardship of asset records 5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE The Policy will be communicated to staff through the Tangible Asset Communication Plan and will be made available on the TRCA website. Staff will be trained as appropriate. Further direction to staff pertaining to training and communication of the Policy will be presented in the TRCA Asset Management Strategy. 563 TRCA Asset Management Policy Page 7 Procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Asset Management Policy will be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance. 6. DEFINITIONS Assets – for the purposes of this Asset Management Policy, assets include land, land improvements, buildings, building improvements, machinery and equipment, vehicles, infrastructure, and works of art/treasures owned and/or managed by TRCA (for descriptions of each asset category and monetary value thresholds, see TRCA’s Tangible Capital Asset Management Policy). Green infrastructure – green infrastructure can be built or natural. Built green infrastructure is engineered vegetative and soil technologies such as bioswales, rain gardens, permeable pavements and green roofs. Natural green infrastructure is natural vegetation and soils. Green technologies – technologies intended to mitigate or reverse the effects of human activity on the environment such as for conserving energy, e.g., solar panels. Life cycle (of assets) – all aspects of managing an asset from “cradle to grave”, including building, purchasing, operating, maintaining, renewing, replacing and disposing of assets. REFERENCES City of Calgary, Administration Policy: Asset Management, July 2010 City of Ottawa, Comprehensive Asset Management Policy, October 2012 Conservation Ontario. Dodging the Perfect Storm. EBR Registry Number: 013-0551, Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure, posted May 25, 2017, accessed August 2017 Ministry of Infrastructure website, accessed January 2017 Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c. 15 Ministry of Infrastructure, Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2012 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 Regional Municipality of York, Corporate Asset Management Policy, November 2013 The Local Government Asset Management Working Group of British Columbia, A Guide to Developing a Municipal Asset Management Policy, Asset Management Policy Sub-committee The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2014 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Tangible Capital Asset Policy, 2009 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Strategic Plan, 2013 – 2022 564 RES.#A203/17 - WEST DON PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION Contract #10005934 – Asphalt Parking Lot Expansion Works. Award of Contract #10005934 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary to complete the reconstruction, expansion and asphalt paving works for the West Don Parking Lot, in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT Contract #10005934 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary to complete the reconstruction, expansion and asphalt paving works for the West Don Parking Lot, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Bond Paving and Construction Inc. for the total cost not to exceed $337,769.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. AMENDMENT RES.#A204/17 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion: THAT staff review the project to ensure the parking lot conforms to TRCA and City of Toronto Green Parking Lot Standards; THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT Contract #10005934 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary to complete the reconstruction, expansion and asphalt paving works for the West Don Parking Lot, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Bond Paving and Construction Inc. for the total cost not to exceed $337,769.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; 565 THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT staff review the project to ensure the parking lot conforms to TRCA and City of Toronto Green Parking Lot Standards; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND TRCA is currently working with the City of Toronto (Transportation Services and Parks Forestry and Recreation) on finalizing the detailed design for the East Don Trail project. The East Don Trail will provide a key connection in the multi-use trail network, joining the existing East Don Trail, Gatineau Corridor Trail and the Lower Don Trail System (Lower Don, West Don and Taylor Massey Creek Trails). In addition, a portion of the East Don Trail will form part of the Pam Am Path legacy trail. The future East Don Trail will connect to a number of trail systems in the south, located at the Forks of the Don, including the Lower Don, West Don and Taylor Massey Creek trails. While in discussion with the City of Toronto regarding the design for the East Don Trail south connection to these trail systems, various user safety concerns were identified. User safety concerns included potential user conflicts and safe transitions between adjacent trails due to existing park access roads and parking lots. The current layout of the West Don parking lot, which is located on TRCA property and under management agreement with the City of Toronto, does not provide marked parking spots, allows for parking on both the east and west sides and does not have a defined trail system leading to the West Don Trail. Currently trail users are utilizing the parking lot access road and bisecting the east and west parking lot spots to access between the West Don Trail and Lower Don and/or Taylor Massey Creek trails. With the addition of the East Don Trail at this trail junction, the City of Toronto anticipates additional users, thus creating the potential for further user conflicts between trail users and vehicles. Expansion of the West Don Trail parking lot to accommodate additional parking spots along the north-south axis allows for the removal of the parking spots on the east side and the creation of a safe separated defined trail access to the West Don Trail. Although this work is being undertaken outside of the detailed design for the East Don Trail project, given its close connection to the trail, the City of Toronto has asked TRCA to manage implementation of the parking lot expansion. A detailed design for the parking lot expansion was prepared by Aquafor Beech Ltd., who is the prime consulting firm on the East Don Trail project, in coordination with the City of Toronto and TRCA. In support of the proposed parking lot expansion, which will include excavation of existing asphalt, installation of granular base, asphalt paving, signage and resting nodes, TRCA is requesting to proceed with retaining a qualified general contractor to carry out the works. 566 Attached is a map illustrating the location of the above mentioned trails and parking lot. RATIONALE Tender 10005934 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on October 25, 2017 with a mandatory site information meeting held on November 1, 2017. Tender packages were sent to 14 contractors as follows: Harvie Construction Inc.; Diamond Earthworks Corporation; Metric Contracting; Grascan Construction; Dagmar Construction; Loc-Pave Construction; Melrose Paving ltd.; CSL Group ltd.; Blackstone Paving and Construction; On-Site Contracting Inc.; Serve Construction; Bond Paving and Construction Inc.; Ashland Paving; and Forest Contracting. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the tenders on November 8, 2017 with the following results: BIDDERS TOTAL (plus HST) Bond Paving and Construction Inc. $337,769.00 Loc-Pave Construction $387,600.85 Serve Construction $389,506.50 Forest Contracting $549,339.96 Harvie Construction Inc. $606,826.32 Ashland Paving $696,758.16 Dagmar Construction $750,393.56 CSL Group Ltd $754,317.50 Staff reviewed the bid received from Bond Paving and Construction Inc. against its own cost estimate and has determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of Bond Paving and Construction Inc.’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that Bond Paving and Construction Inc. is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the evaluation of the bids received, staff recommend that Bond Paving and Construction Inc. be awarded Contract #10005934 for supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary to complete the reconstruction, expansion and asphalt paving works for the West Don Parking Lot, in the City of Toronto, for a total amount not to exceed $337,769.00 to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 20% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications. 567 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is coming from the City of Toronto Transportation, Cycling Infrastructure, Parks Forestry and Recreation and Capital Projects via federal Public Transit Infrastructure Fund (PTIF) for the full East Don Trail Project through account 117-58. Report prepared by: Michelle Guy, extension 5905 Emails: mguy@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mark Preston, extension 5848 Emails: mpreston@trca.on.ca Date: November 8, 2017 Attachments: 1 568 West D o n R iv er E a s t D onRiver L o w e r D o n R i v e r Taylor/MasseyCreek D O N M I L L S R D 0 50 100 Metres © Qu een’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2017] May Not be Reprod u ced withou t Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend Su bject Property Trail Watercou rse West DonParking Lot Expansion SITE ProposedEast DonTrail TaylorMasseyCreekTrail LowerDonTrail Park AccessRoad WestDonTrail DVP Attachment 1 569 RES.#A205/17 - RECORDS STORAGE FACILITY SERVICES Contract #10004310. Award of contract for offsite storage facility for records. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT preferred source Contract #10004310 for Off-Site Records Storage Services for 10 years be awarded to Iron Mountain Canada Corp. at a total cost not to exceed $265,000, plus 15% contingency to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST; THAT the contract be subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and, as necessary, solicitor; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA's records program has been in existence since 1986. Through those years, TRCA has accumulated a substantial number of records. Many of the records currently in heavy usage are stored in central filing at Head Office, while seldom accessed records have been stored at off-site storage facilities operated by independent records management companies since 2001. Iron Mountain is TRCA's current vendor for storage of records, with the current five year contract ending in November, 2017, with an optional two-year renewal. In addition, TRCA utilizes Laserfiche, an industry leading electronic document and records management system, to try to reduce the requirement for physical storage of records and to expedite retrieval of records. While the electronic storage of records continually increases, there is still significant amounts of paper files of a historical nature, and large format documents and red-lined documents that are paper. RATIONALE In advance of enacting the two-year renewal, staff underwent a review of the provincial vendor of record (VOR) contract with Iron Mountain Canada Corp. to compare to current pricing, and requested pricing directly for TRCA from Iron Mountain for 10 years. Iron Mountain has offered 2018 prices for TRCA which are the same as the 2017 level, with a 4% per year increase for each additional year. Should TRCA enact the two–year optional renewal instead of the proposed contract, TRCA would see a price increase in each of 2018 and 2019 equivalent to increases in the Consumer Price Index. Iron Mountain is the Canadian industry leader in offsite storage records. In 2014 and 2015 Iron Mountain acquired Secur-it and Recall Canada. These two companies were Iron Mountain’s direct competition in the Canadian marketplace. Iron Mountain provides TRCA with the following enabling services that TRCA utilizes: IM Connect – Iron Mountain’s 24/7 customer web portal that allows TRCA records staff to get a real time status on all of TRCA’s physical holdings without going through a call centre. Also IM connect acts as TRCA’s disaster recovery dataset for off-site holdings. 570 Radio frequency identification (RFID) labels – All new boxes being sent to storage have RFID labels for faster retrieval of boxes and aids with chain of custody tracking. TRCA boxes can be located from anywhere within their warehouse facility. The current arrangement with Iron Mountain has had no service issues; there have been no delays in retrievals or new transfers. If TRCA were to move to another service provider the staff time to qualify all information would be cost ineffective. Staff has informally compared Iron Mountain’s pricing and services to other providers and Iron Mountain is the best fit for TRCA. The other providers do not offer products similar to IM Connect and RFID labels, both of which are proven efficiencies in file storage and retrieval. Iron Mountain’s prices are highly competitive versus the provincial VOR and informal prices collected from the other providers. Iron Mountain is able to offer aggressive pricing due to the high volume of clients and files they manage. As a result of the efficiencies in program offerings, service support, staff time required to move the approximately 7,200 boxes currently located at Iron Mountain, and the pricing, staff is recommending award of the 10 year contract on a preferred source basis to Iron Mountain, at a total contract value not to exceed $265,000 plus 15% contingency, plus HST. The price increases over the life of the contract is 4% per annum. Should staff become unsatisfied with performance during the contract it may be terminated within 45 days. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds are identified in the TRCA annual operating budget from TRCA’s municipal funding partners in account 001-096. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Records staff will continue to develop and deploy efficiencies and improved technologies to increase usage of the corporate records programs and specifically increase the percentage of records stored in the electronic rather than paper realm. Report prepared by: Jason Ramharry, extension 5216, Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: jramharry@trca.on.ca, kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Jason Ramharry, extension 5216, Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: jramharry@trca.on.ca, kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: November 2, 2017 ______________________________ 571 RES.#A206/17 - AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Ontario Government Funded Employer Diversity Training Project. Approval of the Employer Engagement – Strategies for Integration and Retention Project Statement of Revenue and Expenditure for the period March 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT the Employer Engagement – Strategies for Integration and Retention Project (EEP) Statement of Revenue and Expenditure (the Statement), as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved and signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s Audit and Accountability Guidelines for 2016-2017 Ontario Bridge Training Projects (Guidelines); THAT the Management Representation Letter as outlined in Attachment 2 be signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s Guidelines; AND FURTHER THAT the Audited Statement of Revenue and Expenses, as outlined in Attachment 3 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Funded by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) EEP started on March 1, 2016 and will run until March 31, 2018. Through the development of workshops, online modules, tools and resources, this project is aimed to equip employers in the environmental sector to understand and address considerations related to the hiring, integration and retention of internationally trained professionals. As part of MCI’s Guidelines, Authority approval of EEP’s Statement of Revenue and Expenditure is required (Attachment 1), as verification that the financial information in the report is complete and accurate. In addition, MCI requires that a Management Representation Letter be signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in regard to the Statement. RATIONALE As a result of funding received from MCI, the Authority is responsible for financial reporting and ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the Statement internally, including verification that: Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the project; Funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directly related to this project, have not been included in the Statement; MCI expects that tuition and program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project; Reported expenditures are net of HST rebates; Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the project; The project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; 572 Project funds that were provided prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest-bearing account; and Interest earned on project funding has been credited to the project. The accounting firm of KPMG LLP has completed the audit of the Statement of Revenue and Expenses. The audited statement and accompanying clean opinion are presented in Attachment 3. Report prepared by: Dash Paja, extension 5593 Email: dpaja@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Pamela Papadopoulos, extension 5973 Email: ppapadopoulos@trca.on.ca Date: October 30, 2017 Attachments: 4 573 Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects 2016-2017 Appendix IV: Labour Market Integration Unit Statement of Revenue and Expenditure Template FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM 2016/03/01 TO 2017/03/31 (Please refer to your Schedule B for the Reporting Period) Organization Name: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Project Case Number: 2015-08-1-214461350 Organizational contact Name: Leigha Howard, Project Manager Telephone #: (416) 661-6600 ext. 5343 Project Name: Employer Engagement – Strategies for Integration and Retention (EEP) PROJECT REVENUE Approved Carryover Funding from Previous Reporting Period(s) Ministry Funding for audit period as per Schedule B (2016/2017) $ 320,762 Total $ 320,762 PROJECT EXPENDITURE Total Expenditure $ 147,733 DEFERRED REVENUE Deferred Revenue for audit period as per Schedule B (2016/2017) $ 173,029 UNALLOCATED Unspent funding INTEREST EARNED Interest Earned for audit period 2016/2017 $ 893 I verify that the above financial information is correct and that: Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project; Funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directly related to this project, have not been included in the Report; The Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project. Reported expenditure is net of HST rebates; Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project; The Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest-bearing account; and Interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project. Attachment 1 574 Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects 2016-2017 I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance with the Ontario Bridge Funding Agreement. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Not-for-Profit Organization ___________________ Date _________________________________________________ John MacKenzie Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer _________________________________________________ ___________________ Maria Augimeri Date Chair I have the authority to bind the Recipient 575 Attachment 2 Office Of the Chair November 17, 2017 Ms. Benilda Silkowska-Masior Senior Program Advisor Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Labour Market Integration Unit 400 University Avenue, 3rd Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2R9 Dear Ms. Silkowska-Masior: This management representation letter is provided in connection with the audited financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)’s Employer Engagement - Strategies for Integration and Retention (EEP) Project for the period March 1, 2016 – March 31, 2017. The financial statements of TRCA’s EEP are the responsibility of management and have been approved by the Authority, the board of TRCA. The financial statements have been prepared by management in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Management has determined that its choice of accounting policies supporting the amounts presented on the financial statements, are presented fairly, in all material respects. TRCA maintains systems of internal accounting and administrative controls of high quality. Such systems are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the financial information is relevant, reliable and accurate and that TRCA’s operations are appropriately accounted for and assets are adequately safeguarded. All transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the financial statements. All liabilities have been reviewed by management in consultation with its external auditor KPMG LLP. There are no material liabilities or contingencies as at the date of this report. Significant assumptions used by management in making accounting estimates, including those measured at fair value, are reasonable and approved by the Authority. The effects of uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements as a whole. A list of the uncorrected misstatements is attached. This letter confirms that TRCA management and the Authority have provided; access to all information to the external auditors of which they were aware of that is relevant to the preparation of the financial statements, such as records, documentation and other matters; additional information that was requested by the external auditors for the purpose of the audit; and unrestricted access to persons within the entity who would be determined necessary to provide audit evidence. 576 2 The Authority is responsible for ensuring that management fulfills its responsibilities for financial reporting and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the financial statements. This letter confirms that TRCA management and the Authority have fulfilled their responsibilities, as determined in the transfer payment agreement dated March 1, 2016 and in the Amended Schedule “B” of the first amending agreement effective as of July 1, 2017. I/we certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance with the Ontario Bridge Funding Agreement. _________________________________________________ ___________________ John MacKenzie Date Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer _________________________________________________ ___________________ Maria Augimeri Date Chair I/we have the authority to bind the Recipient 577 A t t a c h m e n t 3 5 7 8 5 7 9 5 8 0 5 8 1 5 8 2 5 8 3 A t t a c h m e n t 4 5 8 4 5 8 5 5 8 6 RES.#A207/17 - MEETING SCHEDULE 2018-2019 Schedule of board meetings for the period beginning February 23, 2018 and ending January 23, 2019. Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Meeting Schedule 2018-2019, dated October 20, 2017, be approved; THAT Meeting Schedule 2017-2018 be amended such that the February 2, 2018 Executive Committee meeting be changed to February 9, 2018; THAT the Executive Committee be delegated the powers of the Authority during the month of August, 2018, as defined in Section 2.10 of the Rules of Conduct; AND FURTHER THAT the CEO's Office distribute this schedule at the earliest opportunity to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) watershed municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. CARRIED RATIONALE Since most Authority members also sit on municipal councils, boards or committees, which usually meet on days other than Friday, the recommended schedule accommodates TRCA board meetings on Fridays. Staff has made every effort to avoid conflicts with municipal council meetings, Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) annual conference and Board of Directors meetings, Board of Governors of Exhibition Place meetings, statutory holidays and school March breaks, in selecting the proposed meeting days, while still maintaining a schedule which meets TRCA's functional needs. There are some meetings that are the same week as Toronto City Council, so if the City meeting runs into extra days, a conflict may occur. Given the long weekends, other conflicts noted above and TRCA reporting requirements, these are the optimal dates for the meetings. The January and February 2018 meetings were previously approved in Meeting Schedule 2017-2018, but are provided in Attachment 1 for assistance in updating calendars, with one change such that the February 2, 2018 meeting is recommended to be moved to February 9, 2018 due to a conflict with Toronto Council. An Authority meeting is not scheduled in the month of August due to summer vacations. To accommodate the large number of permit requests at this time, an Executive Committee meeting is scheduled. Should an item require Authority approval in August, Section 2.10 of the Authority's Rules of Conduct permits the Authority to delegate its powers to the Executive Committee: 2.10 to exercise such additional powers, excluding those powers set out in Clause (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 30 of the Act, as may be assigned to it by the Authority during the months of July and August provided that a report be given to the Authority at the first meeting of the Authority thereafter; 587 Staff is recommending powers be assigned to the Executive Committee for August, 2018, with the required report being brought to the Authority at its meeting proposed to be held on September 28, 2018. Staff is also recommending that the August Executive Committee meeting be conducted with the option of teleconferencing due to the lighter agenda, unless otherwise advised as a result of items scheduled. At Authority Annual Meeting #1/02, held on January 25, 2002, Resolution #A6/02 was approved in part as follows: THAT the dates of future Annual Meetings be changed to accommodate the budget meeting schedule for our member municipalities, such that the Annual Meeting held following a municipal election be in January while the Annual Meetings in the interim two years between elections be moved to February; In accordance with Resolution #A6/02, the 2019 annual Authority meeting is proposed to be held on Friday, January 23, 2019. Meetings will be held at TRCA’s Head Office at 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan. The Authority and Executive Committee meetings will be held at 9:30 a.m. with the exception of the Annual meeting which will be held at 10:30 a.m. at Black Creek Pioneer Village. The Budget/Audit Advisory Board (BAAB) meetings will be held at 8:30 a.m. Members are requested to enter all board meetings in their calendars upon receipt of the annual schedule. Members are further requested to schedule to be in attendance at Authority and Executive Committee meetings from the start of the meeting until at least 1:30 p.m. to ensure quorum is maintained. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: October 20, 2017 Attachments: 1 588 Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 5 AUTH #10/17 6 1 2 3 1 2 BAAB #1/18 EXEC #1/18 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 EXEC #2/18 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 EXEC #11/17 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 EXEC #12/17 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 AUTH #3/18 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 AUTH #11/17 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 ANNUAL AUTH #1/18 (10:30 am) 24 18 19 20 21 22 23 AUTH #2/18 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 EXEC #3/18 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 EXEC #5/18 7 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 BAAB #2/18 EXEC #4/18 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 EXEC #6/18 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 AUTH #6/18 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 AUTH #4/18 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 AUTH #5/18 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 1 2 3 4 5 EXEC #8/18 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EXEC #7/18 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 BAAB #3/18 EXEC #9/18 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 EXEC #10/18 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 AUTH #8/18 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AUTH #7/18 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 AUTH #9/18 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa All AUTHORITY & EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE meetings will be held from 9:30 am until 1:30 pm at 1 2 3 4 AUTH #10/18 5 AUTH = Authority TRCA Head Office, 101 Exchange Ave., Vaughan, unless otherwise noted on the agenda. 6 7 8 9 10 11 EXEC #11/18 12 EXEC = Executive Committee All BAAB meetings will held at 8:30 am unless otherwise noted on the agenda. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 BAAB = Budget/Audit Advisory Board 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANNUAL AUTH #1/19 (10:30 am) 26 27 28 29 30 31 Municipal Election Holidays March Break TRCA meeting schedule also available online on TRCA’s Board Meetings page. January '19 January '18 February '18 October '18 November '18 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2018- 2019 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS December '18September '18 March '18 April '18 May '18 June '18 July '18 August '18 589 RES.#A208/17 - FLEET MANAGEMENT SERVICES Award of Contract #10004673. Award of contract for Fleet Management Services for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) licensed motor vehicle fleet. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT Contact #10004673 for Fleet Management Services be awarded to ARI Canada for a period of three years at a total cost not to exceed $170,000, plus HST, plus a 20% contingency allowance, and pass through charges, as deemed necessary for the fuel and maintenance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) vehicles; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve two “one (1) year extensions” upon completion of the three year contract term and satisfactory review of services, at a total cost not to exceed $60,000, plus HST, plus 20% contingency, and pass through charges per year; THAT should staff be unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the above mentioned proponent, staff be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with the next highest ranked proponent; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The TRCA motor vehicle fleet is comprised of approximately 100 TRCA-owned vehicles and is supplemented during peak operating seasons with approximately 30 short-term rental vehicles. The motor vehicle fleet is made up of a variety of vehicle manufacturers, models and classifications including electric vehicles (EV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), conventional hybrid vehicles and petroleum fuelled vehicles. These vehicles range in size from compact passenger vehicles to class 7/8 heavy duty trucks. Annually these vehicles, combined with the supplemental fleet of short term rentals, provide approximately 1.5 million kilometres of mobility services for TRCA staff. Their use results in carbon dioxide emissions and the release of air pollution. In 2016, the owned and rented fleet vehicles accounted for 548 tonnes of CO2 eq., or 30%, of TRCA’s carbon footprint. RATIONALE TRCA does not currently have fleet management software and/or have in-house fleet servicing in place. The fleet servicing including fuel, and preventative and unscheduled repairs, are coordinated through TRCA’s fleet management provider to assist in the procurement of products, services and national account pricing for the various vehicles and services required. In addition to the services currently utilised TRCA asked the proponents for information on the following services to assist in assessing the value of outsourcing additional aspects of the fleet management program: Motor vehicle records (MVR)/driver’s abstract reporting; Vehicle tracking and optimization (telematics); Fleet safety and driver training; 590 Information and support services (asset life cycle management, vehicle specification development). Request for Proposal (RFP) #10004673 for Fleet Management Services was posted on the online procurement portal www.biddingo.com on July 28, 2017, and direct notifications were sent to those suppliers who have expressed interest, however did not subscribe to the services of www.biddingo.com. RFP #10004673 was viewed by a total of 32 companies and three companies responded. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Aubrey Orr, Rick Portiss and Tom Boyce) conducted a review of the submitted proposals and their evaluation was based on a weighted scoring system consisting of 80% for technical reviews and 20% for fee proposals. The criteria used to evaluate the proposals are as follows: Completeness of the submission; Understanding the project and scope of work; Similar projects of scope and magnitude; Expertise and availability of project team; Approach and methodology; Schedule; Reasonableness of cost. The results of the evaluation were as follows: Fleet Management Providers Ranking (Out of 100%) ARI Canada 73% Element Fleet Management 69% Carrier Centres 44% Based on the cost/benefit analysis performed by staff, it was determined that TRCA would seek to retain the following services for the duration of the contract term: Fuel cards for both TRCA-owned and short term rental vehicles (as required); Managed maintenance program; Preventative maintenance program; Roadside assistance; Vehicle tracking and optimization (telematics); Motor vehicle records services (driver’s abstract). Through research and conversations with regional users of telematics systems, it is anticipated that using telematics can mitigate risk through on-board diagnostics/reporting in real time and reduce fuel consumption resulting in both financial and environmental cost savings. Savings are anticipated to be on per-vehicle basis, while overall fuel and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may increase due to projected expansion of TRCA’s fleet. Fuel efficiency gains would likely accrue through changes in driver behavior related to speeding, harsh accelerating and braking, and vehicle routing, once users become familiar with the monitoring program. Further savings could be achieved if information for these events can be combined with active educational engagement for specific driving behaviours. Administrative gains will also be achieved through an improved efficiency of a Motor Vehicle Records (Driver’s Abstracts) review process for all TRCA staff. 591 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding is available through the TRCA vehicle and equipment maintenance/repair fund which is self-funded through calculated vehicle and equipment chargeback rates accounting for operational expenditures of TRCA’s fleet (700-01). Report prepared by: Aubrey Orr, extension 5760 Emails: aorr@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Aubrey Orr, extension 5760, Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Emails: aorr@trca.on.ca, gmacpherson@trca.on.ca Date: November 6, 2017 ______________________________ 592 RES.#A209/17 - SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAICS AT BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE An Assessment of Options. An assessment of solar PV options for reducing the operating costs at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff investigate opportunities for solar photovoltaics (PV) at Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) and report back to the Authority once a suitable roof top solar PV product has been identified. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #3/16, held on October 14, 2016, staff was directed to explore options for use of solar power at Black Creek Pioneer Village and report back. Staff had prepared a Renewable Energy Strategy for TRCA in 2016 to examine the opportunity for deploying renewable energy technologies at 16 TRCA facilities including BCPV. The intent of the strategy was to look at how we could take advantage of the final stages of the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program as well as to examine the long term viability of renewable energy at TRCA facilities. (Copies of the strategy will be available at the meeting.) The report focused primarily on solar PV opportunities as qualitative analysis indicated that for other renewable energy technologies, either the renewable energy resource was not available at the sites (i.e. wind) or each site’s energy demand was not large enough to justify the capital costs (combined heat and power and bio energy). Based on the results of the report the most viable option was solar PV. To address the board’s question for BCPV, staff looked into three solar PV scenarios and given that the Feed-in-Tariff program is no longer active, the net-metering option was considered in each case. Net metering is a program whereby a site can produce electricity for the grid and consume electricity from the grid and only pay for the net amount consumed from the grid (plus regulatory, delivery and other charges). The scenarios examined included: 1) Roof mounted solar PV on the Visitor Centre; 2) Covered parking solar PV in the BCPV parking lot; and 3) Ground mounted solar PV on the North property. Scenario 1: Previous studies had indicated that the roof on the Visitor Centre was near its structural capacity and as such could not support additional weight without significant and costly structural reinforcements. However, in recent years, new light weight solar panels (0.5 lbs. per sq. ft.) have come on the market that can be glued to existing flat roofs. Using a thin film product as an example, staff calculated that 150kW of solar panels could be installed on the Visitor Centre roof at an installed cost of approximately $380,000 ($2.53/W). Simple payback period would be 15 years with an internal rate of return of six percent over a 25 year investment period. Because of the small roof area, this project would only provide enough electricity for approximately 60 percent of the Visitor Centre’s electricity consumption. The low weight thin film solar PV products have not been on the market for as long at the monocrystalline solar PV cells so their long term reliability is not yet known. There is evidence that the electrical output of the thin film products degrades faster than the standard products and as such the warranty period is shorter. 593 Scenario 2: Covered parking with solar PV on top can be installed in Ontario at a total cost of approx. $4.00 per Watt. The BCPV Visitor Centre would require 450kW of solar PV to completely net meter its electricity consumption. This size of system would require approximately two acres of land, would cost $1,800,000 to implement and would have a simple payback period of 21 years. The internal rate of return is two percent over a 25 year investment period. Scenario 3: Ground mounted solar PV systems are the least expensive solar PV installations. As with the covered parking, the site would require 450kW and two acres of land but the system can be installed for $2.30 per watt for a total cost of $1,035,000. Simple payback period would be 14 years with an internal rate of return of six percent over a 25 year investment period. This project would provide enough electricity to completely net meter the Visitor Centre’s electricity consumption. However, this project would require two acres of the Black Creek North property to be allocated for the solar PV installation for at least 25 years but up to 40 years, which is the life expectancy of basic monocrystalline solar cells. RATIONALE Scenario 2, the covered parking with solar PV is too expensive at this time. In the future as installation costs decline and electricity prices climb there may be a point where this approach is economically viable. Scenarios 1 and 3 provide the best rate of return and simple payback period. However, both approaches have drawbacks. The ground mounted solar PV on the North property would tie up two acres of land for an extended period of time and require a significant capital investment. In addition, the lands that would be required are identified as potential future commercial development in the master plan and as such are an important future revenue source. The roof top solar project requires a reasonable amount of capital and has a reasonable return but requires the use of a relatively new product that may not achieve the same performance of the conventional monocrystalline solar cells. At this time, staff cannot recommend moving forward with a solar PV project at BCPV. However, the solar PV market continues to evolve as does provincial policies. In fact, the Ministry of Energy is currently investigating the potential for virtual net metering (off-site solar PV). Staff will monitor the solar PV market and provincial policies on solar PV to identify appropriate technologies and opportunities for BCPV and other TRCA facilities. FINANCIAL DETAILS Based on the analysis, at this time, staff does not recommend an investment of capital in the scenarios outlined. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will monitor the light weight solar PV market to identify candidate products that could be installed on the roof of the BCPV Visitor Centre; Staff will monitor changes in provincial policies affecting solar PV and other renewables; Staff will report back to the Authority when a suitable product has been identified and a viable economic analysis has been completed. For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: bmcintyre@trca.on.ca Date: October 31, 2017 ______________________________ 594 RES.#A210/17 - WETLAND WATER BALANCE RISK EVALUATION Approval of TRCA’s Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation, a technical guideline developed to streamline implementation of Water Balance for Protection of Natural Features of TRCA’s Stormwater Management Criteria document (2012) and The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: David Barrow WHEREAS wetlands play a crucial role as part of the “green infrastructure” of the Toronto region by providing flood attenuation, filtering of air and water pollutants, wildlife habitat and greenspace for communities to enjoy; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff review and provide advice and recommendations on applications for development, infrastructure and site alteration affecting wetlands for planning, environmental assessment and permitting applications; AND WHEREAS in 2016, TRCA staff developed the draft Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (Risk Evaluation) to provide guidance to proponents on how to assess the risk that their proposal may pose to the water balance of a wetland and streamline the application review process by indicating under which scenarios TRCA would request a wetland water balance analysis, and if so, to identify the level and scope of the analysis required; AND WHEREAS in April of 2017, TRCA staff sought input into the development of the draft Risk Evaluation from partner municipalities, provincial agencies, the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), consulting firms and neighbouring conservation authorities, and have now finalized the Risk Evaluation based on the input received; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the TRCA Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation be endorsed for use by proponents of development and infrastructure, consultants and TRCA staff in the planning and development submission, review and approval process; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA), TRCA’s member municipalities, Conservation Ontario and neighbouring conservation authorities be so advised. CARRIED 595 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #7/12, held on September 28, 2012, Resolution #A173/12 was approved, endorsing the TRCA Stormwater Management Criteria document (hereafter referred to as the SWM Criteria document). In accordance with provincial guidance and TRCA’s The Living City Policies, applications under TRCA review are required to meet TRCA’s four SWM criteria: water quantity, water quality, erosion and water balance. The approved water balance requires that a wetland water balance analysis be undertaken by proponents when their proposal for development affects a wetland that has been designated for protection though the planning process. The water balance analysis helps to ensure the protection of wetlands and their ecological function following development, and to increase the resilience of wetlands to other stressors, such as climate change. Wetland water balance analysis may also reduce municipal risks and liabilities associated with nuisance flooding of private property and municipal infrastructure, issues that may arise when wetland water balance is not properly considered. A water balance will not generally be required for linear infrastructure, such as roads and railways, where TRCA’s regular permitting process would generally be sufficient to address potential impacts to natural features and associated mitigation options. Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation The Risk Evaluation is a technical guideline that was requested by the development industry to help clarify the technical requirements of the water balance SWM criterion. The Risk Evaluation synthesizes existing and available information to scope the level of risk an undertaking may have on a wetland and determine the level of monitoring and modelling required for the water balance analysis. The Risk Evaluation benefits proponents by: Clarifying when wetland monitoring is and is not required; Clarifying when technical analyses, such as modelling approaches, can be scoped to simpler approaches when risks are low; Providing consistency and transparency in decision-making; Efficient use of information as it largely requires the use of data that is already being collected as part of the planning process; Simplifying the review process by providing step-by-step guidance on risk determination and identifying the level of study required for each category of risk (low, medium, high). The Risk Evaluation supports TRCA’s Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol, a technical guideline that was endorsed by Resolution #A143/16 at Authority Meeting #6/16, held on July 22, 2016, which outlines the components of a water balance monitoring program when the Risk Evaluation determines that one is required. RATIONALE Conservation authorities (CAs) regulate wetlands under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act due to their importance for the hydrology and the ecology of watersheds. CAs also advocate for the protection of wetlands in their commenting roles under the planning and environmental assessment review processes. Protection of wetlands and their associated hydrological and ecological services is a key objective under provincial policy including the Provincial Policy Statement, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan. Furthermore, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s recently released “Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario (2017-2030)” outlines the Province of Ontario’s objective of ensuring no net loss of wetlands in southern Ontario by 2025. 596 The protection of wetlands on the landscape helps to fulfill TRCA’s key objectives, and those of the Province and municipalities, for watershed resilience to climate change and land use change. Wetlands cover less than five percent of TRCA’s jurisdiction yet provide a disproportionately large quantity of ecosystem services, including water storage, reduction of downstream flooding and erosion, provision of baseflow in streams, and provision of habitat for plants and animals (some of which only occur in wetlands). The water balance of a wetland is an accounting of the various pathways by which water enters or leaves a wetland, such as rainfall, overland runoff or groundwater seepage. Land use change within the surface water catchment of a wetland may alter the water balance by changing the ratio of surface runoff (water output) to infiltration (water input) within the catchment, the proportion of water lost to evapotranspiration, or the area draining to a wetland through grading and stormwater management activities. Many of the ecosystem services provided by wetlands are dependent on the water balance and altering the water balance can result in loss of ecosystem service. TRCA has documented a number of instances in which insufficient consideration of water balance for natural features has resulted in loss of ecosystem services and created nuisance flooding and erosion issues on private lots and back-up of water into municipal stormwater infrastructure. These are issues that are difficult and expensive to mitigate after development has occurred and/or infrastructure has been installed. Proactive mitigation during the planning phase is much more cost-effective, but requires that the need for a water balance analysis be identified as early as possible in the planning and development process so that proponents and reviewers can scope the analysis into the application. The Risk Evaluation plays a critical role in helping to ensure that wetlands that have been recommended for protection through the planning, environmental assessment or permitting process maintain hydrological function. The Risk Evaluation identifies if a water balance analysis is necessary and, if so, the scope of study (monitoring and modeling) that is appropriate given the features of the application in question. The complete Risk Evaluation is available on the water balance webpage under “Documents for Download” https://trca.ca/conservation/greenspace-management/water-balance/ Stakeholder Consultation TRCA staff established an External Stakeholder Committee (ESC) with representatives from municipalities, BILD, the consulting industry, Credit Valley Conservation and other conservation authorities to collaborate on the development of the Risk Evaluation. Drafts of the Risk Evaluation were circulated for comment and revised based on feedback from internal staff, the ESC, and more broadly from external partners which included all of TRCA’s partner municipalities, BILD, the consulting industry, relevant provincial agencies and neighbouring conservation authorities. TRCA received a total of 170 formal comments from 13 external organizations on the draft version of the Risk Evaluation during the three stages of review (internal, ESC and broader stakeholder consultation). External commentators were generally supportive of the intent and structure of the draft version, and some had seen the draft previously through its use by TRCA Planning Ecology staff; preliminary reports from staff are that the draft is helpful as a tool for consultants and staff in scoping water balance study requirements. A complete list of the comments received and TRCA’s responses is available on the water balance webpage. 597 Building Industry and Land Development Association: TRCA received one formal comment from BILD expressing support for the approach presented to evaluating risk, and for a higher degree of consistency in requirements for baseline wetland hydrology monitoring. BILD also indicated that they would like to see the Risk Evaluation adopted by other conservation authorities to enhance consistency across municipal and conservation authority boundaries. Consulting Industry: Engineers, ecologists, planners and hydrogeologists from the private consulting industry commented on the draft document. Commentators expressed support for the general approach. The consulting industry raised concerns about whether the data required to complete the Risk Evaluation would be available when the Risk Evaluation is intended to be applied. Planners at TRCA were consulted and they ensured that the data required to complete the risk evaluation are collected as part of the existing planning process and available during the early planning stage when the Risk Evaluation should be completed. Municipalities: Municipal representatives from several lower and upper-tier municipalities participated in the External Stakeholder Committee meetings where the initial framework and, later, the draft document were presented. York Region requested clarification around proponent responsibilities and the applicability of the Risk Evaluation to regional infrastructure projects. Additional text was added to clarify that the primary focus of the Risk Evaluation is site-based infrastructure projects such as utility and transit stations and not at-grade linear infrastructure such as roads. Other Conservation Authorities: Credit Valley Conservation and Conservation Halton submitted comments primarily around the ecological criteria used to classify the sensitivity of a wetland to hydrological change. The criteria used to evaluate sensitivity were reviewed and modified to address concerns. The draft Risk Evaluation was written to be generic so that other conservation authorities could adopt this Risk Evaluation document for use in their own jurisdictions without substantial alteration; there is no specific reference to TRCA, and lists of sensitive vegetation and species are included as appendices which can be changed for the relevant CA. Province: The draft document was circulated to MNRF but no comments were received. MNRF and MTO have both participated previously in the development of other tools and guidelines pertaining to the SWM Criteria document. FINANCIAL DETAILS The development of the Risk Evaluation was supported by capital funding from the regional municipalities of York and Peel. TRCA staff secured external funding in the form of grants from the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund and the Toronto Remedial Action Plan. These grants, together with funding from the regions of York and Peel, also support continued wetland water balance monitoring in the jurisdiction being led by TRCA and Credit Valley Conservation, and the development of a modelling guidance document (currently underway) to assist the completion of water balance analyses for the protection of natural features, as discussed further below. 598 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Risk Evaluation will be implemented through the Planning, Greenspace and Communications division in review of Planning Act applications, environmental assessment and master planning, and through TRCA’s own permitting process. TRCA planners, engineers, ecologists and hydrogeologists reviewing applications will continue to work with proponents of development and consultants to streamline the review process while striving for the best possible outcome for environmental and growth management objectives. TRCA’s Planning and Development Procedural Manual, Environmental Impact Study Guidelines, and Stormwater Management Criteria document will all be updated to include the Risk Evaluation. The Risk Evaluation will be posted on TRCA’s website and will be reviewed biannually in conjunction with the Wetland Water Balance Monitoring document to reflect new science and understanding, and any minor updates to the SWM Criteria document. Introductory training on the use of the Risk Evaluation has been provided to TRCA planners. Upon completion of the Wetland Water Balance Modelling Guidance Document (expected spring 2018) a training session will be held for TRCA staff, industry consultants and partner municipalities on the use of all tools (Risk Evaluation, Monitoring Protocol and Modelling Guidance) developed as part of the Wetland Water Balance project. All three tools have been designed to work together and simultaneous training on all three tools will provide a comprehensive learning experience for staff and partners. In the interim, support will be provided to all TRCA staff, industry consultants and partner municipalities as needed for the implementation of the Risk Evaluation and the Monitoring Protocol to ensure the tools are applied correctly. Report prepared by: Chris Edge, extension 5208, Neil Taylor, extension 5601, Laura Del Giudice, extension 5334 Emails: cedge@trca.on.ca, ntaylor@trca.on.ca, ldelgiudice@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Chris Edge, extension 5208 Emails: cedge@trca.on.ca Date: October 27, 2017 ______________________________ 599 RES.#A211/17 - SNOW REMOVAL AND SALTING/SANDING SERVICES 2017-2018 Award of Contract #10005983 for Snow Removal and Salting/Sanding Services for 24 locations which include residential rental properties, education field centres and conservation dam roads. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT Contract #10005983 for Snow Removal and Salting/Sanding Services for 24 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) sites for the 2017-2018 winter season be awarded to Ivy Property Services for a total cost not to exceed $133,140, plus 20% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, with an option to renew for the 2018-2019 winter season under the same terms and conditions, pending approval by TRCA staff, for a total two-year cost of $266,280, plus 20% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND It is TRCA’s continuing objective to ensure the health and safety of its staff and visitors as well as to mitigate injuries and major incidents. The provision of snow removal and salting/sanding services will aid in reducing the hazards of winter road conditions, maintain safe parking lots, and facilitate the handling of emergencies by fire and police officials. The 2016-2017 Snow Removal and Sanding/Salting Services were provided by three separate contractors: Ivy Property Services, AAA Landscaping Co. Ltd. and Value Property Services. For the 2017-2018 season, snow removal and salting/sanding applications are required for the following locations: 1. 18620 Centreville Creek Road, Caledon East 2. 7273 14th Avenue, Markham 3. 7277 14th Avenue, Markham, parking lot only 4. 7401 Reesor Road, Markham 5. 3 Reesor Road, Toronto 6. 9 Reesor Road, Toronto 7. 19 Beare Road, Toronto 8. 8180 Regional 50, Brampton 9. 4673/ 4699/ 4685 Rutherford Road, Woodbridge 10. 2899 Consession Rd 6, Uxbridge 11. 6461 Steeles Avenue East, Toronto 12. 364 Old Finch Avenue, Toronto 13. 6545 Steeles Avenue, Toronto 14. 7262 & 7284 Reesor Road, Markham 15. 17 Mill Street, Markham 16. 561 Glasgow Road, Bolton 17. 1229 Bethesda Side Road, Richmond Hill 18. 13540 Caledon King Townline South, Bolton 19. 4020 Westney Road North, Goodwood 20. Black Creek Pioneer Village, 1000 Murray Ross Parkway, Toronto 21. 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview 22. 16500 Regional Rd 50, Caledon 600 23. Claireville Dam, 7625 Finch Avenue West, Brampton 24. G. Ross Lord Dam, 740 Finch Avenue West, Toronto RATIONALE Request for Quotation (RFQ) #10005983 documentation was reviewed by eight firms. The RFQ documentation requested monthly pricing for occupied properties requiring regular service and “on-call” pricing for vacant properties requiring emergency access service only. Quotations were received from four bidders and analyzed by TRCA staff (Kate Pankov, Jamie-Lee Warner and Stephanie Demetriou) on October 19, 2017 with the following results: Estimated Annual Cost Summary for the 2017 – 2018 Season Note: The above calculations are based on a five month 2017-2018 winter season for monthly services; and six total snow-removal and salting/sanding services for the on-call locations. AAA Landscape Co Ltd.’s submission was disqualified as per TRCA’s Purchasing Policy due to a late submission. Ivy Property Services offered a 40% discount on monthly snow removal and sanding/salting services should they be awarded the full contract. The total annual cost of awarding the contract to different bidders based on the lowest bid per site (therefore not including the 40% discount on monthly services offered by Ivy) would be $169,160. Site # and Service Type Action Anytime Price Per Season Ivy Property Services Price Per Season Value Property Services Price Per Season 1 – Monthly $11,250 $10,260 $8,245 2 – Monthly $11,250 $5,040 $ - 3 – Monthly $7,750 $3,540 $ - 4 – Monthly $7,750 $3,540 $ - 5 – On Call $4,950 $900 $ - 6 – On Call $6,150 $900 $ - 7 – Monthly $7,875 $6,900 $ - 8 – Monthly $11,750 $8,580 $11,845 9 – Monthly $12,000 $7,440 $5,745 10.1 – On Call $4,800 $5,400 $ - 10.2 – On Call $4,470 $5,400 $ - 11 – Monthly $7,250 $3,540 $ - 12 – On Call $5,070 $900 $ - 13 – On Call $4,050 $900 $ - 14 – On Call $4,800 $900 $ - 15 – On Call $3,870 $900 $ - 16 – On Call $5,370 $5400 $4,740 17 – Monthly $14,100 $10,440 $ - 18 – Monthly $11,000 $8,580 $12,945 19 – Monthly $ - $10,080 $ - 20 – Monthly $18,200 $13,620 $19,445 21 – On Call $4,350 $1,740 $4,740 22.1 – Monthly $11,400 $5,400 $ - 22.3 – Monthly $7,750 $5,400 $ - 23.1 – Monthly $8,000 $3,720 $8,845 24 – Monthly $8,000 $3,720 $5,245 TOTAL $203,205 $133,140 $81,795 601 Based on bids received, staff recommends that Contract #100005983 for Snow Removal and Salting/Sanding Services for 24 TRCA sites for the 2017-2018 winter season be awarded to Ivy Property Services Inc. for a cost of $133,140, plus 20% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, with an option to renew for the 2018-2019 winter season under the same terms and conditions, pending approval by both parties, for a total two-year cost of $266,280, plus 20% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for snow plowing and salting/sanding services are identified within the divisional operating budgets. Funding for the residential rental portfolio is provided primarily through rental income, the remaining sites are funded through TRCA’s municipal partners. Report prepared by: Anita Geier, extension 5668 Emails: anita.geier@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Lori Colussi, extension 5303 Emails: lcolussi@trca.on.ca Date: November 3, 2017 ______________________________ 602 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES.#A212/17 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: David Barrow THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss item 7.12 – Food Operations, Events and Retail Services Request for Proposal at Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre for Conservation, as it pertains to personnel records. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES.#A213/17 Moved by: Anthony Perruzza Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT the committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED RES.#A214/17- FOOD OPERATIONS, EVENTS AND RETAIL SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AT BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE AND KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION Contract #10004550 Food Services and Events. Approval to enter into contract negotiations with the highest ranked proposal for Food Services and Events at both Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre for Conservation, and to decline Request for Proposal #10005446 for Retail Services. Moved by: Anthony Perruzza Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff undertook a Request for Proposal process which explored how new business partnerships may contribute to growing and diversifying Black Creek Pioneer Village’s (BCPV) and Kortright Centre for Conservation’s (KCC) food operations, events and retail services; AND WHEREAS TRCA received and evaluated two proposals for Request for Proposal (RFP) #10004550 Food Services and Events and two proposals for RFP#10005446 Retail Services at both locations respectively; AND WHEREAS byPeterandPauls.com is the highest ranked proposal for RFP#10004550 Food Services and Events for both BCPV and KCC; AND WHEREAS it is beneficial to TRCA to continue managing all aspects of retail services at BCPV and KCC; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff enter into contract negotiations with byPeterandPauls.com for Contract #10004550 Food Services and Events at both BCPV and KCC; 603 THAT TRCA’s Executive Committee be delegated authority to award Contract #10004550 Food Services and Events subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor; AND FURTHER THAT all external proposals submitted for RFP#10005446 Retail Services be declined. AMENDMENT RES.#A215/17 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Anthony Perruzza THAT the confidential amendment be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority owns and operates BCPV and the KCC, two dynamic educational facilities located in heritage and natural settings. In order to support the core operations at both facilities, TRCA manages the food services, events and retail operations as a means of diversifying revenue generation and providing value added services at each location. At Authority Meeting #2/17, held on March 24, 2017, Resolution #A31/17 was approved as follows: WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) operates Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) and the Kortright Centre for Conservation (KCC); AND WHEREAS TRCA staff leads the management of food operations, retail services and public events at both locations; AND WHEREAS staff continues to seek ongoing improvement to business models to increase net revenues and improve service delivery related to food operations, retail services and public events; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a Request for Proposal process be undertaken to explore how new business partnerships may contribute to growing and diversifying BCPV’s and KCC’s food operations, retail offerings and public events. Following this resolution, staff initiated two Request for Proposal processes for food services and events (RFP#10004550), and retail services (RFP#10005446). In order to ensure both quality and quantity of responses, staff released the RFP publically through a variety of communication channels. The RFP’s were posted publically on July 26, 2017 via Biddingo and were circulated directly through email to six companies as follows: 604 byPeterandPauls.com; Liberty Entertainment Group; Cashew and Clive; Dynamic Hospitality; A La Carte, Kitchen Inc; and Daniel et Daniel Catering and Events TRCA staff hosted four site visits in total to ensure proponents had an opportunity to tour the spaces at each location as a conditional component of each RFP. Upon the closure of the RFP processes on September 13, 2017, TRCA received the following submissions: RFP#10004550 Food Services and Events for both BCPV and KCC byPeterandPauls.com Cashew and Clive RFP#10005446 Retail Services for both BCPV and KCC byPeterandPauls.com Cashew and Clive RATIONALE The main outcome of this process is to develop innovative relationships and offerings with third party facilitators to provide an increased benefit to TRCA and residents in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). This encompasses: Generating increased revenues for TRCA which will assist in financing existing infrastructure, ongoing programming and operations; Improving the capacity and growth potential of the food services and events portfolio; Engaging larger and more diverse audiences across the GTA while establishing stronger brand recognition; and Developing innovative relationships which provide value added services and experiences for users and surrounding communities. In order to assess the proposals, TRCA established an evaluation committee that consisted of staff from Parks and Culture, CEO’s Office and Education, Training and Outreach. Each group completed an evaluation matrix consisting of the following categories: Financial Return to TRCA (35%); Operating Model (20%); Operational Integration (15%); Qualification, Background and History of Proponent Including References (15%); Vision and Theme of the Proposal (10%); and Value Added Features (5%). All team scores were combined to create an average score for each proposal. Food Services and Events Proposals for RFP#10004550 Food Service and Events were evaluated as follows: RFP#10004550 Food Service and Events Results byPeterandPauls.com Cashew and Clive Black Creek Pioneer Village 85% 70% Kortright Centre for Conservation 78% 71% 605 The evaluation process for RFP#10004550 Food Services and Events resulted in byPeterandPauls.com ranking the highest for both locations. The byPeterandPauls.com proposal offers TRCA opportunities for increased capacity, value added features, revenue generation and a commitment to leasehold capital improvements. Both proponents note that they will employ all existing food service and events staff and acknowledge that they will comply with the relevant continuity of employment provisions in the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The proposal by byPeterandPauls.com clearly highlights their capacity to achieve major growth and their strengths in marketing and audience development. The byPeterandPauls.com proposal further displays their financial commitment through a variety of potential new business opportunities and value added features that could assist in diversifying potential revenue streams while supporting the existing programming. Their proposal outlines their longstanding successful and relevant company history in the food service and events business which contributes to a strong foundation of brand recognition in the market. Their proposal also recognizes the importance of the core business and programming at each location, and highlights opportunities to enhance these offerings through the addition of various service components. The byPeterandPauls.com proposal also acknowledges the backlog of infrastructure repairs at both locations, and has committed to financially support required repairs. As a result of the evaluation process, staff recommends that TRCA enter into contract negotiations with byPeterandPauls.com for Contract #10004550 Food Service and Events for both Black Creek Pioneer Village and Kortright Centre for Conservation. Retail Services The evaluation process for RFP#10005446 Retail Services resulted in staff determining that operating retail services internally will provide a more profitable opportunity as compared to the external proposals. An additional contributing factor is the ability to generate revenues directly attributed to seasonal festivals. As a result of this evaluation, staff recommends that the external proposals be declined at this time. FINANCIAL DETAILS The proposal submitted for RFP#10004550 (Food Services and Events) by byPeterandPauls.com presents a more lucrative opportunity for Food Services and Events than operating internally. ByPeterandPauls.com’s proposal for Food Services and Events outlines monthly compensation in the form of fixed base rent and variable percentage rent based gross revenue; leasehold improvements at both locations; as well as various value added financial benefits to TRCA. All financial details will be explored further during contract negotiations. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following Authority approval, TRCA staff will notify Cashew and Clive and byPeterandPauls.com that their proposals for RFP#10005446 (Retail Services) were unsuccessful. Further, staff will notify Cashew and Clive that their proposal for RFP#10004550 (Food Services and Events) was unsuccessful. RFP#10005446 Retail Services Results byPeterandPauls.com Cashew and Clive Black Creek Pioneer Village 47% 39% Kortright Centre for Conservation 47% 48% 606 Staff will advise byPeterandPauls.com that TRCA is interested in commencing negotiations for Contract #10004550 Food Services and Events. If staff and byPeterandPauls.com is unable to come to mutually agreeable terms, staff will report to the Authority on the status of negotiations. Report prepared by: Kimberly Krawczyk, extension 5862 Emails: kkrawczyk@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards@trca.on.ca Date: November 10, 2017 ______________________________ 607 RES.#A216/17 - PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Request for Proposal #10006270 Pre-Construction and Construction Management Services. Award of Contract #10006270 for Pre-Construction and Construction Management Services for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s New Administrative Office Building located at 5 Shoreham Drive, in the City of Toronto. Moved by: Anthony Perruzza Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Contract #10006270 for Pre-Construction Services for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) new administrative office building be awarded to Eastern Construction Company Limited for a total cost not to exceed $180,000 plus HST, as they are the highest ranked proponent resulting from evaluation criteria set out in the Request for Proposal (RFP); THAT Contract #10006270 for Construction Management Services in support of the new administrative office building be awarded to Eastern Construction Company Limited based on a fixed percentage mark-up of 1.90% on direct construction costs plus HST, as they are the highest ranked proponent resulting from evaluation criteria set out in RFP; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT award is subject to additional reference checks to verify the proponent’s experience and ability to the satisfaction of staff; THAT should staff be unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the above-mentioned proponent, staff be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with the next highest ranked proponent; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/16, held on June 24, 2016, Resolution #A85/16 approved the construction of an administrative office building at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto and directed staff to take the necessary action to complete the Project, including the submission of formal requests for approval to the participating municipalities and the Province of Ontario. On February 24, 2017, staff reported at Authority Meeting #1/17 that all six of TRCA’s participating municipalities, by way of their respective Councils, had approved the Project and the allocation of $60,000,000 in new and existing capital funding toward the Project. 608 In May 2017, TRCA retained Jones Lang LaSalle Canada (JLL) as its project managers for the Project. In September 2017, TRCA retained the services of an integrated design team, led by ZAS Architects and Bucholz McEvoy Architects, to proceed with the development of the project design and construction documents. TRCA is now engaging a construction management firm to provide pre-construction services throughout the design and bidding stages and to provide construction management services for the construction of the new facility, coordination of commissioning and operational start-up, and associated site works. TRCA’s current contracting strategy is to tender the work in limited phases, with a potential early works package, which may include site services, excavation and shoring. All remaining construction scope packages would be tendered at the same time; before the commencement of construction of the new building, in order for TRCA to have known construction cost as well as understanding of the proposed construction trades before the full start of construction. RATIONALE A Request for Qualifications and Proposals for Pre-Construction and Construction Management Services was issued via Biddingo on September 29, 2017 to invite firms to pre-qualify to provide pre-construction services throughout the design and bidding stages and to provide construction management services for the construction of the new facility. On October 19, 2017, TRCA received proposals from the following firms: Chandos Construction Limited; Eastern Construction Company Limited; EllisDon; Gillam Group; and The Atlas Corporation. Following receipt of the submissions, TRCA staff undertook a compliance review to ensure conformance with the mandatory requirements as outlined in the Request for Qualifications and evaluated the overall qualification submissions on the following criteria: Cover Letter; Firm Profile; Proponent’s Construction Management Experience; Proponent’s Experience with Projects of a Similar Nature; Proponent’s Team, Organization, Roles and Responsibilities. Evaluation scoring sheets were completed by each individual evaluator and signed and submitted on October 26, 2017 to TRCA’s project manager, JLL. Evaluation scores were compiled by JLL, and weighted scoring results were provided to TRCA. On October 27, 2017, JLL facilitated a consensus meeting with the Selection Committee to achieve a final scoring that was agreed upon by the Committee. This resulted in Chandos Construction Limited, Eastern Construction Company Limited and EllisDon prequalifying to the stage 2 evaluation of technical and fee proposals. All firms were subsequently notified of the results of the evaluation process. Technical proposals were then reviewed by the Selection Committee, separate from the fee proposals, based on the following weighted scoring criteria. 609 Evaluation scoring sheets were completed by each individual evaluator and signed and submitted on November 2, 2017 to JLL to be compiled. The results were then prepared by JLL using a weighted scoring system consisting of 65% based on the technical review of the proposal, including 10% of the value of the points the proponent earned during the Request for Statement Qualifications phase, and the remaining 25% based on the fee proposal calculated by JLL using the following formula: Number of Points = Lowest Fee / Proponent Fee x 25 points. On November 6, 2017, JLL facilitated a consensus meeting with the Selection Committee to achieve a consensus scoring on the submitted technical evaluation results compiled by JLL. Following completion of this process JLL provided the weighted scoring results for discussion and finalization by the Selection Committee and sought feedback on any outstanding questions or clarifications that may be outstanding. The final results of the evaluation of received proposals are as follows: Proponent Lump Sum Price (Pre-Construction Services (A) Fixed Fee % (Construction Management Services) (B) Estimated Fixed Fee Assuming Construction Cost of $53 million A + (B x $53 million) Rank Eastern Construction Company Ltd. $180,000 1.90 $1,187,000 1 Chandos Construction Ltd. $210,000 2.98 $1,789,400 2 EllisDon $120,000 3.00 $1,710,000 3 The lump sum prices indicated above account for costs associated with pre-construction services as described within the RFP, while the fixed fee percentage (%) for Construction Management Services will be applied to direct construction costs. Both fees were considered in the evaluation scoring of the fee proposals and the calculated total assumes estimated construction costs. Based on the evaluation process it was determined that the technical and fee proposal submitted by Eastern Construction Company Limited was the highest ranked proposal meeting the needs of TRCA’s project and offering the best value for services. Criteria Weight 1. Proponent’s Understanding, and Proposed Approach and Methodology for the Services 25 2. Unique Challenges and Opportunities Represented by the Site and the Schematic Design 25 3. Lessons Learned from Similar Projects 10 4. Schedule 5 5. Fee Proposal 25 6. Points from the Request for Qualifications Proposal Evaluation 10 Total Weighted Points 100 610 Before the commencement of construction, it is staff’s recommendation that TRCA enter into a fixed lump sum cost agreement with the retained construction manager for the duration of construction. Based on Eastern Construction Company Limited’s fixed fee percentage, in addition to estimated direct staff and general condition costs, it is estimated this agreement will be in the magnitude of $4-6 million dollars. The total Construction Management Services cost will be negotiated with Eastern Construction and reported to the Authority at the time construction tenders are received, which is anticipated in early 2019. FINANCIAL DETAILS The final design and site plan approval process will be undertaken between October 2017 and into early 2019, followed by construction and commissioning phases that will conclude in 2021. Funds are available in the Capital Budget for the contract period of 2017 – 2021, in account 006-50. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will be delivering this project by utilizing an integrated design process, involving the expertise of a comprehensive design team, including key TRCA staff, and other specialists to realize a highly efficient, cost effective building, and reduced long-term operating and maintenance costs. TRCA will engage the expertise of the construction management firm, as well as material suppliers during the design process to comment on constructability, costs and to ensure that construction of the building is delivered without any unnecessary delays. The key project phases are as follows: Project Phases: Architectural Design Phase Oct 2, 2017 – July 16, 2018; Site Plan Approval Apr 2, 2018 – Feb 4, 2019; Tender Construction Feb 4, 2019 -May 24, 2019; Construction June 17, 2019 – Mar 1, 2021; Occupancy Mar 1, 2021 – June 1, 2021. Report prepared by: Aaron J. D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: ajdsouza@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Aaron J. D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: ajdsouza@trca.on.ca Date: November 3, 2017 ______________________________ RES.#A217/17 - TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSET POLICY Approval of Policy Revisions. The Tangible Capital Asset Policy revisions are recommended for approval. (Budget/Audit Res.#C10/17) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti 611 THAT the revisions to the Tangible Capital Asset Policy, as presented in Attachment 1, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A218/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed Cougs (Workman’s) Ltd., CFN 56096. Acquisition of property located east of Church Street North and north of Rossland Road West, in the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B99/17) Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT 11.2 hectares (27.8 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Church Street North and north of Rossland Road West, said land being Part of Lot 14, Concession 3, designated Parts 1-4 on 40R-8952 Save And Except Part 1 On Plan 40R-24996 and Save And Except Part 1 on draft-M-Plan by J.D. Barnes Limited, Reference No. 14-25-888-05, dated September 28, 2017; and Blocks 4-5 on draft M-Plan by J.D. Barnes Limited, Reference No.14-25-888-03, dated September 15, 2017, in the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from Cougs (Workman’s) Ltd.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A219/17 - REQUEST FOR EXCHANGE OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Davpart Inc., CFN 56150. An exchange of land located west of Keele Street and south of Sheppard Avenue West, municipally known as 111-117 Whitburn Crescent, in the City of Toronto, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B100/17) 612 Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Mike Mattos WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from Davpart Inc. for TRCA to enter into an exchange of lands with Davpart Inc., the owner of 111-117 Whitburn Crescent, City of Toronto, in order to resolve an existing encroachment on the adjacent TRCA-owned lands; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Davpart Inc., in this instance and proceed with the land exchange; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into an exchange of lands with Davpart Inc. on the following basis: 1. Davpart Inc. will convey to TRCA a parcel of land containing 0.035 hectares (0.09 acres), more or less, of vacant valley lands, located west of Keele Street and south of Sheppard Avenue West, said land being Part Block 1, PL 4503 North York as in TB215629; designated as Part 1 on sketch created on May 13, 2016 by MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, municipally known as 117 Whitburn Crescent, in the City of Toronto; 2. TRCA will convey to Davpart Inc. a parcel of land containing 0.02 hectares (0.06 acres), more or less, of table lands with existing parking spaces, located west of Keele Street and south of Sheppard Avenue West, said land being Part Block 1, PL 4503 North York as in NY666347; designated as Part 2 on sketch created on May 13, 2016 by MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, municipally known as 1651 Sheppard Avenue West, in the City of Toronto; THAT TRCA receive consideration in the sum of $275,880.00; all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by Davpart Inc.; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT Davpart Inc., is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this exchange; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by Davpart Inc.; THAT said conveyance be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED 613 Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A220/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT Section II item 10.2.1 – Black Creek Pioneer Mill Pond Clean-out and Restoration Project A, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/17, held on November 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 614 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A221/17 - INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT Program Update. Insurance and risk management program presented for the Authority’s information. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT the staff report on the performance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) insurance and risk management program be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Conservation Ontario Insurance Committee Cooperative Insurance Program TRCA as a constituent member of Conservation Ontario participates in a cooperative insurance program available to all 36 conservation authorities (CA). The Conservation Ontario Insurance Committee (COIC), a sub-committee of the Conservation Ontario Council has delegated authority to select both health benefits and property/casualty insurance providers for participating member CAs. TRCA's Associate Director, Property and Risk Management currently serves on the COIC along with representatives from other CAs. The COIC procures the following insurance policies on behalf of its participating members through a brokerage agreement with Marsh Canada Limited: Property Crime Auto Commercial General Liability (CGL) Errors and Omissions Liability (E+O) Umbrella Liability, Directors and Officers Liability (D+O) Statutory Defense Liability Boiler and Machinery (Boiler) The above policies are purchased by COIC and issued by the underwriter to each member CA. Payable premiums under each policy are subsequently divided among each member CA based upon COIC approved allocation models. The allocation models are subject to review by the COIC membership. Other Insurance In addition to the policies procured through COIC, TRCA has identified a number of additional exposures for which it requires coverage to conduct is business. In order to get the most competitive and cost effective pricing for each coverage line, these polices have also been brokered through Marsh Canada and include: Non-Owned Aircraft Liability Group Travel Insurance Volunteer Accident Benefits Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Liability Insurance (UAV) Contractors Pollution Liability Insurance (CPL) Bathurst Glen Golf Course Club Package Project Specific Wrap-Up Liability, Sureties and Pollution Liability Insurance The majority of policies listed above have been in force for several years with the notable exception of the UAV policy and the Contractors Pollution policy, the former of which was purchased to cover for liabilities associated with drone photography and the latter of which was purchased to cover for potential environmental losses and to comply with partner contract requirements. 615 2013 – 2017 Premium Summaries (All dollar amounts are in thousands of dollars) FINANCIAL DETAILS Total insurance premium costs are expected to increase approximately 3-5% per year until the 2019-2020 renewal year, however premium pricing is also subject to some degree of market risk. Staff will work closely with COIC as well as Marsh Canada to address these fluctuations as they are presented. Corporate wide lines of insurance including CGL, E+O, D+O, Umbrella, Crime, Statutory Defense and Group Travel are funded through the corporate insurance account 012-29 from municipal funding partners. All other lines of insurance are covered by project specific accounts. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE While insurance is not the only tool available to the organization in managing risk, it has been and will be the major component of TRCA’s risk management program for the foreseeable future. At the time of writing, TRCA has not, to the best of staff knowledge, suffered any significant losses outside of coverage offered by some form of insurance. Staff is however constantly reviewing exposure levels against current insurance limits to ensure adequate coverage. TRCA staff will continue to ensure that the correct balance between risk retention and risk transfer is achieved while ensuring both proper coverage but also maximum value from premium dollars spent. Report prepared by: Adam Szaflarski, extension 5596 Emails: aszaflarski@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Adam Szaflarski, extension 5596 Emails: aszaflarski@trca.on.ca Date: November 7, 2017 ______________________________ Insurance Line 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Auto $44 $45 $58 $60 $63 CGL $131 $118 $128 $128 $149 Crime $5 $1 $3 $4 $4 E&O $71 $154 $157 $148 $140 Property and Boiler $281 $193 $208 $221 $229 Umbrella $48 $48 $48 $48 $49 Bathurst Glen $17 $20 $17 $18 $15 Aviation $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Marine $8 $7 $7 $8 $9 D+O $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 SUBTOTAL $607 $588 $628 $637 $660 % Change (3%) 7% 1% 4% Other Projects $212 $22 - $121 - UAV - - - $3 $3 CPL - - - $19 $17 TOTAL $819 $610 $628 $780 $680 616 RES.#A222/17 - SECTION III – ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis THAT Section III item 9.2.1 – Expenditures Report, contained in Budget/Audit Advisory Board Minutes #3/17, held on November 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A223/17 - SECTION III – ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT Section III item 9.2.2 – 2018 Budget Update, contained in Budget/Audit Advisory Board Minutes #3/17, held on November 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A224/17 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended item 10.3, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/17, held on November 3, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ NEW BUSINESS RES.#A225/17 - EAST DON TRAIL PARKING STRATEGY Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the City of Toronto be requested to conduct a parking strategy for the East Don Trail. CARRIED ______________________________ 617 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:27 a.m., on Friday, November 17, 2017. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks John MacKenzie Secretary-Treasurer 618 Authority Meeting #10/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, January 5, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Kevin Ashe Member Jack Ballinger Member Ron Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Michael Ford Member Brenda Hogg Member Jennifer Innis Member Jim Karygiannis Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member John Sprovieri Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member David Barrow Member Jennifer Drake Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Colleen Jordan Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member RES.#A226/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT the Minutes of Meeting #9/17, held on November 17, 2017, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 619 CONFLICT OF INTEREST Michael Ford declared a conflict of interest in regard in regard to item 10.1.2 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Land – 4156 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke, as Councillor Ford owns property in this area. ______________________________ DELEGATIONS 4.1 A delegation by Laura Alderson, in regard to item 10.1.1 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Land. 4.2 A delegation by David Rembacz, in regard to item 10.1.2 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Land. RES.#A227/17 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Jim Karygiannis Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT above-noted delegation 4.1 be received. CARRIED RES.#A228/17 - DELEGATIONS Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT above-noted delegation 4.2 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 620 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A229/17 - GREENBELT GOLDEN HORSESHOE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES COLLABORATIVE Expanding the Membership and Realigning the Geography and Mission of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition. To authorize Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s participation by the Chief Executive Officer in the newly formed Greenbelt Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities Collaborative. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jennifer Innis WHEREAS the Province has affirmed its commitment to strengthen the Greenbelt, and to advance place-based planning on a regional scale through the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; AND WHEREAS the Greater Golden Horseshoe is one of the fastest growing regions in North America, with a projected population of almost 12 million people by 2031; AND WHEREAS the health of Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe residents depends on the health of the natural environment, the sustainability and resilience of our communities and the building of a constituency of interests for a healthy urban region; AND WHEREAS Conservation Authorities provide valuable and value-added services and benefits to our municipal partners who are addressing complex issues including climate change, Great Lakes water quality, public safety through flood remediation, sustainable city-building and transportation options; AND WHEREAS ten Conservation Authorities have met for over a decade as the Greater Golden Horseshoe Chief Administrative Officers group to advance mutually beneficial solutions to the challenges facing the more urban watersheds, and nine Conservation Authorities have established place-based collaborative actions on the Oak Ridges Moraine since 2000 in the form of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition; AND WHEREAS there is an opportunity among Conservation Authorities to share knowledge, coordinate action, build expertise, understanding and capacity at a landscape scale, utilize resources in a more efficient and effective manner and ensure consistency of practice to advance better planning, policy and program outcomes; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) participation in the Greenbelt Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities Collaborative be endorsed; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) be authorized to sign the Memorandum of Understanding outlined in Attachment 2. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Province of Ontario enacted the Conservation Authorities Act in 1946 enabling municipalities to create watershed-based agencies called conservation authorities (CA). Today, 36 conservation authorities exist, predominantly in southern Ontario, which contains 90% of the province’s population. 621 Although CAs are autonomous bodies focused on local watershed issues, over the years CAs have also grouped together to address broader environmental issues which transcend watershed boundaries. For example, in 2000, the nine CAs having the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) within their watersheds formed an alliance entitled the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC) to develop a position on how the CAs could assist with the ORM’s protection. The CAMC formed a partnership with the regions of York, Peel and Durham and the City of Toronto (YPDT) to advance the hydrogeological science of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The CAMC also worked with the regions to advance recommendations for land securement, stewardship, monitoring and Natural Heritage Systems data management and protection, leading to provincial actions to enact ORM legislation and the ORM Conservation Plan. Similarly, 10 urban-based CAs have met for over a decade to address concerns and challenges specific to more populated watersheds. This assembly is entitled the Greater Golden Horseshoe Chief Administrative Officers (GGH CAO) group. At recent meetings of both the CAMC and the GGH CAO, discussions were held regarding amalgamating the two groups into one broader collaborative to address current resource management challenges within the GGH region, such as climate change, flood remediation and the environmental impacts of growth. A collaborative of conservation authorities on the GGH scale would have as a primary objective to support our respective municipalities to be successful in creating sustainable communities. As examples, 13 GGH CAs have been working together over the past year to develop a Greenbelt Enhancement Action Plan. Similarly, three GGH CAs (Credit Valley, Lake Simcoe and TRCA) have been leaders for research and promotion of Low Impact Development (LID). Additionally, these two groups have maintained a leadership role in the 10-year review of the four geographically based provincial plans for the Greenbelt, the Niagara Escarpment (NE), the ORM and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan, by preparing report cards and collaborating in the consultation and commenting process. RATIONALE There are many benefits to amalgamating the two groups, including the streamlining of efforts and reducing any duplication in work or overlap in attendance at meetings. This grouping of Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe CA has many common interests that can be addressed most efficiently as a collaborative including: providing expertise for the consistent implementation of new policies in the four provincial land use plans, in order to manage the environmental impacts of future growth; conducting research on sustainable technologies to minimize urban impacts; enhancing and restoring the environmental quality of natural heritage and water resource systems; supporting sustainable agriculture and food security; growing the green economy; and advancing inter-regional trail connections and recreational opportunities across the Greenbelt landscape. It is the intent that the amalgamated collaborative will provide a platform for dialogue among the CAs whose watersheds are located in the geographic area of the Greenbelt, NE, ORM and GGH Growth Plan area. Further, it is intended that this new CA collaborative will provide key advice and support to municipalities that are addressing climate change response, Great Lakes water quality, healthy communities and other growth related challenges. The goals and objectives from the Charter/Terms of Reference for the GGH CA Collaborative are detailed in Attachment 1. The mission of the GGH CAC is: 622 To advance the science, understanding, protection, restoration and public enjoyment of the Natural Heritage and Water Resource Systems of the Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe, in order to support municipal and provincial policies to provide a healthy, resilient and sustainable foundation for GGH communities. Membership in the New Collaborative In addition to the CAs currently involved with the CAMC, it is proposed to expand the collaborative to include the CAs that have a large portion of their watersheds in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Greenbelt areas (Appendix 1 in Attachment 1 - Charter/Terms of Reference). The new collaborative would include the Chief Administrative Officers (or equivalent) from the following CAs: Central Lake Ontario Conservation Halton Credit Valley Ganaraska Region Grey Sauble Kawartha Conservation Lake Simcoe Region Lower Trent Niagara Peninsula Nottawasaga Valley Otonabee Region Toronto and Region Collaborative Logistics The collaborative will engage with regional partnerships for sustainability initiatives and provincial/regional/GGH issues and initiatives that are not identified as a strategic priority for Conservation Ontario. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that identifies the general provisions for the operation of and participation in the collaborative is included as Attachment 2. The MOU contains the value proposition and statement of challenge and opportunity to guide the Collaborative in its work. It also contains details of the working relationships of the parties, as well as provisions for adding new members or terminating the partnership. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A list of 2018 work plan priorities is included as Attachment 3. FINANCIAL DETAILS The nine CA’s involved in the CAMC provide an annual (pro-rated) amount of $40,000 to support a secretariat function, which is provided by the TRCA. New partners to the collaborative will contribute to the secretariat support on a similar pro-rated basis. This funding will be used to support secretariat staffing functions (administrative and coordination/policy support at 20% of one full time equivalent position), meeting costs and as seed funding for contributions to successful project grant/funding proposals. The budget to support the secretariat is included as Attachment 4, which will become effective for all members beginning in 2018, and will be updated and approved annually. TRCA has contributed $10,000 annually to the CAMC since 2001 and will continue to contribute the same amount to the GGH CAC. Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett@trca.on.ca For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: dburnett@trca.on.ca Date: December 5, 2017 Attachments: 4 623 Goals & Objectives for the GGH CA Collaborative Goal 1: To foster partnerships to protect and restore an integrated natural heritage, land form and water resource system throughout the Greenbelt and Golden Horseshoe. 1. Work collaboratively to develop standards and ecologically based targets for terrestrial natural cover and wildlife habitat suitable for the varied landscapes of the GGH. 2. Drive innovation in managing water systems in urban and urbanizing areas by sharing knowledge and research that will facilitate the uptake of green technologies and green infrastructure. 3. Share policies and best practices that have proven effective in managing the challenges of urbanization and the integration of the rural land base and agricultural network with natural systems protection. Goal 2: Strengthen the collaborative capacity of Conservation Authorities to further establish science-based research, monitoring and modelling through the development of environmental centres of excellence. 1. Collaborate with partners to ensure a long term monitoring and data collection program is in place for a variety of parameters in order to periodically report on GGH- wide health and sustainability trends over time, on a comparative watershed basis. 2. Become a GGH center of excellence for environmental modeling in areas such as groundwater, surface water hydrology, near-shore Lake Ontario and Green Infrastructure/Green Technologies and encourage, support and integrate the application of this knowledge into sustainable community planning, servicing and development. Goal 3: To promote healthy communities and provide opportunities for public use, enjoyment and outdoor recreation by contributing to an accessible, linked public green space and trail system across the Greenbelt–Golden Horseshoe. 1. Promote the use of public green space and trail systems across the GGH for their contribution to broader social goals and values such as ecological goods and services, public health, food security and social equity. 2. Work with trail and other organizations to identify a regional network of off-road trail routes featuring a diversity of habitats, views and vistas to maximize educational and interpretive opportunities. 3. Utilize public lands to demonstrate the value and significance of the Greenbelt and connected natural systems, and promote their use for public enjoyment, recreation, local foods and health. 624 Goal 4: To advocate for ongoing and consistent funding for programs to protect and restore natural systems through stewardship, land securement and education. 1. Facilitate partners and stakeholders to advocate for the protection and enhancement of natural systems, features and functions, through the development of common messaging about the importance of natural systems. 2. Empower a team of partners to seek funding support and investment in stewardship activities on both public and private lands, as well as for the management of secured lands. 3. Collaborate with municipal and other partners to ensure adequate funding to maintain a coordinated network of educational programs and related facilities at conservation lands to provide family and youth oriented environment-based experiential learning and recreational opportunities. Goal 5: To provide expert advice on environmental planning and policy matters to support a robust and resilient natural environment as the foundation for sustainable community planning across the Greenbelt – Golden Horseshoe. 1. Develop strategic partnerships to establish roles, responsibilities and funding mechanisms to support effective implementation of planning and policy matters for sustainable communities and new policy directions resulting from the 10-year review of Provincial Plans for the Oak Ridges Moraine, Greenbelt, Niagara Escarpment and Growth Plan. 2. Establish a team of planning and policy experts to research, develop and promote consistent and effective policy tools and mechanisms to support sustainable GGH environment/community needs. 3. Develop a strategy to enhance communications with key stakeholders, critical to effective planning and policy implementation. Attachments Appendix 1 Greenbelt Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities Map 625 Appendix 1 - Greenbelt Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities 626 Attachment 2 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for the Greenbelt Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities Collaborative (“Collaborative”) 627 PREFACE: The Greater Golden Horseshoe is one of the most rapidly growing, dynamic, economically and ecologically significant regions in North America. More than 25% of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product is created here. At the same time, it is hydrologically and ecologically significant and has some of Canada’s most productive farmland and important water resources. The Province of Ontario has recently updated the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and, at the same time, confirmed its commitment to the Greenbelt, including such natural features as the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment. Protecting and enhancing these areas in perpetuity will require the involvement and commitment of many. Conservation Authorities (CA) with watersheds in these planning areas have a key role to play in promoting a culture of conservation, ensuring that the environmental health of our communities is sustained, and that our quality of life continues to be unparalleled. Like the geography that unites us, CA share many of the same challenges but also many of the same aspirations. Working closely with our member municipalities and other partners, we recognize that escalating growth pressures will continue to impact our green spaces and water resources. Over time, the issues we face, particularly across our most populated watersheds, will only increase in number and complexity. Climate change, healthy and resilient communities, natural heritage systems protection, water quality in the rivers, creeks, ground water and Great Lakes are issues that transcend jurisdictions. They are critical issues that require collaborative action and innovative solutions. CA within the Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe have historically established ad-hoc collaborative alliances on an as-needed basis in response to topical issues of common interest. The approach to date has been operational and tactical in nature. The time for more formalized strategic action is now. The Province has committed to strengthening the Greenbelt and upholding its provincial interests at a landscape level across the Greater Golden Horseshoe and beyond. Conservation Authorities are driven to provide coordinated and value-added products and services to municipal partners as this is essential, not only to ensuring that our municipal partners are equipped with the right information, but that our relevance as watershed management agencies and resource management partners of choice, is affirmed. Creating a formal Collaborative is a necessary first step to ensuring that the issues facing the Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe are identified and addressed and that opportunities to achieve a sustained high quality of life are pursued. Through the combined efforts of the Collaborative, the environmental quality of Ontario’s Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan lands can be positively influenced. Thinking strategically about these lands and establishing a collaborative partnership among CA will allow better information sharing, more efficient and effective alignment of resources, and ultimately, for better decisions and better ecological outcomes to emerge. The time is ripe to seize the opportunities before us and demonstrate the value of collaborative actions by CA. 628 Collaborative Collective Purpose (Value Proposition) The Collaborative has a three-fold collective purpose, as follows: 1. To improve our ability to provide coordinated and beneficial products and services to our municipal partners and stakeholders that will continue to build CA relevance. 2. To provide the critical mass of expertise and legitimacy to tackle landscape-scale issues and secure larger project grants for application at the local level. 3. To coordinate among our CA to share knowledge and ensure consistent practice for better outcomes in urbanization and environmental protection. CHALLENGE & OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT WH Y T H I S I S S O I M P OR T A N T … The Greater Golden Horseshoe is one of the fastest growing regions in North America. The issues facing this geography are complex, urgent and all too often, compelling and pervasive. The Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan lands are facing many challenges, not the least of which are time and a growing population. New stories, new approaches and new collaborations are needed. The environment of the Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe is connected; it needs to be viewed as part of the same integrated thought process. The Conservation Authorities of the Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe are perfectly positioned to advance a more thoughtful, cohesive and collaborative approach to addressing environmental protection needs and impacts of growth on a landscape level. A formal Greenbelt Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authority Collaborative is needed. 629 THE SIGNATORIES TO THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AGREE to collaborate on actions to build a stronger CA place-based partnership across the Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe to protect natural systems, improve understanding of the environmental impacts of growth and to make Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe communities safer, healthier, and more sustainable by: 1. Undertaking science-based research and monitoring and regularly reporting on the state of the environment across the Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe. 2. Creating and sharing value-added knowledge and information with municipal partners and stakeholders about environmental challenges and issues to support decision making for more sustainable and resilient growth planning outcomes. 3. Providing opportunities on appropriate public lands for outdoor environmental education, recreation and community-based urban agriculture to support healthy and engaged citizens. 4. Providing environmental planning and policy advice and expertise to build ecological resilience and support sustainable community planning across the Greenbelt and Greater Golden Horseshoe. MOU SUPPORT Signatories to the MOU will support the work of the Collaborative by: Committing the CAO/GM/CEO or senior staff alternate to attend quarterly meetings of the Collaborative; Identifying issues of concern that impact member municipalities as well as areas of opportunity for the Collaborative; Working with other members of the Collaborative to develop an Annual Work Plan that will identify projects and initiatives of mutual benefit and support to the Collaborative, its partners and member municipalities; Contributing modest financial support, by April of the year to which it is applicable, based on the CA ability to pay, in keeping with an annual proposed budget. This financial support will assist the Collaborative by offsetting meeting costs, secretariat support including the administration of funds secured through the Collaborative and providing seed funding for approved projects and associated grants; Contributing to the preparation of joint grant applications for project specific initiatives that are of interest and benefit; 630 Providing in-kind staff support on specific projects, in keeping with the capacity of an individual CA and relevance to its watershed issues; Sharing watershed-based plans, information, tools and data to enable landscape scale report carding that in turn will support CA-specific research, policy and planning. IMPLEMENTATION The signatories establish a Collaborative specifically focused on the vision, mission, principles, goals and objectives as stated in the Terms of Reference/Charter, and in the Annual Work Plan. The Collaborative will facilitate the implementation of this MOU. Working Groups may be established to guide specific tasks, as identified by the Collaborative. An Annual Work Plan will be established for this purpose. GENERAL PROVISIONS This MOU does not create legally binding obligations on the signatories. The signatories confirm their intention to preserve the confidentiality of commercially sensitive business information of each other and any third parties, and not to disclose such information other than as required or permitted by law. Nothing in this MOU derogates from the powers, rights or privileges entrusted to the signatories to this MOU, nor can it affect the interpretation of legislation or any regulation, by-law or order made under an Act. The signatories may amend this MOU by a written document signed by each signatory, including the addition of new members. Any signatory may cease their participation in the Collaborative by providing sixty (60) days written notice to the other signatories. This MOU is produced in twelve (12) copies, one for each of the signatories. 631 Signatories to the Collaborative Dated at ___________________________, on the _______ day of _________, 2018. For Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, For Conservation Halton, For Credit Valley Conservation, For Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, For Grey Sauble Conservation Authority, For Kawartha Conservation, For Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, For Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority, For Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 632 For Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, For Otonabee Region Conservation Authority, For Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 633 1) Greenbelt Enhancement Action Plan: work with the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation to complete an implementation strategy for the existing project. a. Finalize the top priority projects b. Develop a communications and launch strategy c. Secure funding and implementation partners d. Execute plans and strategies (by individual Authorities). 2) Western Lake Ontario Basin-Lake Initiative a. Provide leadership and direction for coordinating actions to link land and lake-related actions in the Western Lake Ontario basin to restore, preserve and protect Lake Ontario. b. Hold workshops to confirm partners and identify projects for inclusion. 3) GGH Coordinated Land Use Plans and Initiatives: review and understand the implications of amendments to the four GGH Provincial Plans and other related GGH initiatives, and direct any needed changes to CA implementation roles. a. Collaboratively with Conservation Ontario, participate in the review of work done by provincial technical teams in creating the Agricultural System, the Natural Heritage System, implementation guidelines for watershed plans, green infrastructure, performance measures, etc. b. Knowledge transfer to front line staff in permitting and planning functions. c. Sharing of technical comments on relevant GGH issues and initiatives. d. Prepare monitoring and reporting strategy to inform the next 10-year review of the 4 Plans and/or other GGH report cards. 4) Green Technologies (GT), Green Infrastructure (GI) and Environmental Modeling a. Work with partners to establish Centre of Excellence hubs to test and promote GT and GI innovations and offer technical transfer opportunities to the broader Conservation Ontario network. b. Develop strategies to mainstream the use of Green technologies and infrastructure in climate change mitigation and recommend to CO. c. Formalize a regional Center of Excellence for the modeling of groundwater, surface water hydrology, source water protection and the western basin of Lake Ontario. d. Establish a STEP (Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program) Water collaborative to bring all knowledge, tools and training resources under one brand to support the delivery of LID across the GGH and Ontario. 5) Development of strategic partnerships with organizations such as: a. Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation b. Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario (RPCO) and Regional Engineers c. Greater Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance d. Toronto Global (GTA marketing alliance) e. Ontario Environment Industries Association (ONIEA) f. Green Infrastructure Ontario (GIO) (*collaboratively with CO) g. Others such as Civic Action, Neptis, Academia. 6) Receive presentations by CA technical project groups to provide advice and direction at their key project milestones. 7) Begin to establish Technical Teams as necessary for identified work plan priorities. 634 Attachment 4 GGH CAC 2018 Budget CAMC 15-Nov-17 Estimated 2018 2017 Approved Year End GGH CAC REVENUE $$ GGH CAC Partners Central Lake Ontario 5,000 5,000 Credit Valley 5,000 5,000 Ganaraska Region 5,000 5,000 Kawartha Conservation 2,500 2,500 Lake Simcoe Region 5,000 5,000 Lower Trent Region 2,500 2,500 Nottawasaga Valley 2,500 2,500 Otonabee Region 2,500 2,500 Toronto and Region 10,000 10,000 Conservation Halton n/a 5,000 Niagara Peninsula n/a 5,000 Grey Sauble n/a 2,500 Prior Period Revenue (carry forward)$21,060 $42,125 Other Revenue (GBF Action Plan - final payment)6,815 0 TOTAL REVENUE $67,875 $94,625 EXPENDITURES Salary 17500 25,000 Benefits 4200 5,000 Supplies 0 100 Meetings & Functions 500 1,200 Travel Expenses 100 500 Staff Development, Prof. Membership 700 750 Conference Expenses 0 0 Courier, Postage, Telephone 0 500 Promotional Material & Expenses 0 5,000 Printing Expenses 0 2,000 GIS/mapping support 200 1,000 Communications Support - Facilitation 2550 2,000 Grant-matching Project "Seed" Funds 0 51,575 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $25,750 $94,625 Excess of Revenue Over Expenditures (Expenditures Over Revenue)$42,125 $0 635 RES.#A230/17 - GOODWOOD RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TRACT TRAIL PLAN PROJECT Initiation of Plan and Public Process. Commencement of a public planning process for the Goodwood Resource Management Tract Trail Plan Project, in partnership with Parks Canada, Green Durham Association and the Oak Ridges Trail Association. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jennifer Innis WHEREAS Green Durham Association (GDA) in partnership with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Parks Canada and the Oak Ridges Trail Association (ORTA) has received $75,000 from the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) to undertake a public planning process for the Goodwood Resource Management Tract (Goodwood RMT) Trail Plan Project; AND WHEREAS Parks Canada has committed to providing $33,000 towards the trail planning project with a focus on developing a northern gateway from TRCA lands and the Oak Ridges Trail to Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP); AND WHEREAS GDA and the ORTA have committed to providing $50,000 towards the implementation of the plan ($40,000 GDA and $10,000 ORTA); THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff initiate a public planning process in partnership with Parks Canada, the Green Durham Association and the Oak Ridges Trail Association to undertake the Goodwood RMT Trail Plan Project; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the final draft Trail Plan for approval. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Goodwood Resource Management Tract is comprised of 127.5 hectares (315 acres) of greenspace located in the West Duffins Creek subwatershed. The property is bordered by Webb Road to the south, Concession 2 to the west, and Concession 3 to the east. It is located entirely within the Township of Uxbridge in Durham Region. The property lies within the Oak Ridges Moraine, and is comprised entirely of natural cover. The trail system on the property includes several kilometres dedicated to hiking, snow-shoeing and cross-country skiing, including a section of the main Oak Ridges Trail, and a secondary loop of the Oak Ridges Trail, which connects to the RNUP on the south side of Webb Road. These trails were identified in the Duffins Creek Headwaters Management Plan for TRCA Properties (TRCA and The Duffins Creek Headwaters Advisory Committee, 2003). The southern boundary of the Goodwood RMT is almost directly across the road from the northernmost tip of RNUP. These northern RNUP lands were added to the Park in 2015, part of an approximately 2,100 hectare (5,200 acre) northeastern addition that extends the RNUP into the Regional Municipality of Durham and further into the Oak Ridges Moraine. With a section of the main Oak Ridges Trail running through the Goodwood RMT property, there is a key opportunity to provide a trail gateway connection between the regional Oak Ridges Trail network and the trail system within these northern RNUP lands. 636 RATIONALE A new dedicated trail plan for the Goodwood RMT will address the possibilities of this new context, with the Goodwood RMT now located at a critical juncture in the area’s trail landscape. The Goodwood RMT has historically been managed as part of the Duffins Headwaters Management Plan for TRCA Properties (2003). There has never been a dedicated trail plan for the Goodwood RMT property. Parks Canada is currently undertaking detailed trail planning work in the new northern RNUP lands, including the area immediately adjacent to the Goodwood RMT. Undertaking a Goodwood RMT Trail Plan at this time allows the harmonization of trail planning work between TRCA and Parks Canada and the ability to create a cohesive trail gateway between the two properties. To explore this gateway opportunity between the RNUP trails and the Oak Ridges Trail system, it is highly valuable to bring together partners with expertise in these regional trail networks. Therefore it is appropriate to undertake the Goodwood RMT Trail Plan project as a partnership between TRCA, Parks Canada, the ORTA and the GDA. The new Goodwood RMT Trail Plan will ensure that the future trail system will provide the best possible experience for its users, providing enhanced public access to greenspace and engaging recreational trail experiences while protecting the ecological integrity of the property. FINANCIAL DETAILS Project funding is available through a $75,000 OTF grant, and $33,000 provided by Parks Canada. This funding fully covers the cost of TRCA staff and other incidentals required to complete the plan. The funds will be processed through account 444-72. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE This new trail plan will be undertaken within an ecosystem framework and in consultation with the community to ensure watershed health, public enjoyment and environmental sustainability. The planning process will be undertaken in the three phases: Phase 1 – Project Initiation and Study Inventory: Inventory physical environment, natural environment, land use context Inventory existing trails Establish a TRCA staff technical advisory committee, host meeting Establish a community liaison committee, host meeting Initiate on-line engagement Engage with Indigenous partners Phase 2: Trail Planning – Alternatives and Preferred Develop and evaluate trail alternative alignments, including loop trails, and supporting trail amenities, such as parking, signage and resting areas Develop the concept of a Gateway feature to acknowledge the connection between RNUP, TRCA land and the Oak Ridges Trail Develop a safe public crossing of Webb Road Consult with the Township of Uxbridge Accessibility Advisory Committee Host a public information centre Hold meetings with staff technical advisory committee and community liaison committee Phase 3: Plan Finalization Develop management recommendations and a detailed implementation plan 637 Develop trail plan document Obtain Parks Canada, GDA and ORTA endorsement of the plan Obtain TRCA approval of plan Fulfill OTF grant requirements for recognition and reporting Regular updates with project partners will ensure all parties are informed of the project status and can discuss issues or opportunities for support. Report prepared by: Corinna Thomassen-Darby, extension 5625 Emails: corinna.thomassen-darby@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Bender, extension 5827, Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204 Emails: mbender@trca.on.ca, dcheriton@trca.on.ca Date: December 11, 2017 Attachments: 2 638 ")407 ")412 ")401 0 2.5 51.25 km F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licens ors . [2017] May Not b e Reproduced without Permis s ion. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend Goodwood RMT Watercours e Waters hed TRCA Property GoodwoodRMT # ^SITE DUFFINS DON CARRUTHERS HIGHLAND Lake Ontario Attachment 1 639 WEBB RD C O N C 2 C O N C 3 0 250 500125 Meters F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2017] May Not b e Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend Authorized Trail Goodwood RMT Federal Lands Watercourses TRCA Property Parcel Assessment Subject Property # W e s t D u f f i n s C r e e k ^SITE Attachment 2 640 RES.#A231/17 - OAK RIDGES CORRIDOR CONSERVATION RESERVE TRAIL PLANNING PROJECTS Initiation of Plan and Public Process. Commencement of a public process for trail planning projects within the Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve, namely planning for a MacLeod Estate trail connection and consideration for cycling uses on certain secondary trails. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jennifer Innis WHEREAS The Gordon and Patricia Gray Foundation, in partnership with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), has applied for a $75,000 grant from the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) to undertake a public planning process for the MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage project; AND WHEREAS the Town of Richmond Hill has committed $160,000 towards a public planning process and implementation of the MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage project contingent upon the funding partnership arrangement with TRCA, OTF and The Gordon and Patricia Gray Foundation (Town of Richmond Hill Council Meeting November 27, 2017, Confirmatory Bylaw #114-17); AND WHEREAS The Gordon and Patricia Gray Foundation has committed to providing $100,000 towards the implementation of the MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage project within the Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve (ORCCR); AND WHEREAS TRCA, The Town of Richmond Hill, and The Gordon and Patricia Gray Foundation will be entering into a Memorandum of Understanding to establish roles and responsibilities for undertaking the MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage project; AND WHEREAS a request has been made by Durham Mountain Biking Association to permit cycling on secondary trails in Jefferson Forest (part of TRCA’s Oak Ridges Corridor Park East (ORCPE) lands in the ORCCR), and has expressed a desire to steward mountain biking trails on the TRCA lands in the Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff initiate a public planning process for two related trail planning projects within the Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve: an Addendum to the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan – the Macleod Estate Trail Linkage, and an Update to the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East Management Plan – Cycling on Secondary Trails, subject to confirmation of funding; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority for approval on the final draft plans of the Addendum to the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan and the Update to the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East Management Plan. CARRIED MOTION TO RE-OPEN RES.#A232/17 Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker 641 THAT item 7.3 – Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve Trail Planning Projects be re-opened. CARRIED RES.#A233/17 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT item 7.3 – Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve Trail Planning Projects be re-adopted. CARRIED BACKGROUND The ORCCR is a large area covering two formerly separate properties: the Oak Ridges Corridor Park (ORCP) (428 hectares) owned by the Province of Ontario (Infrastructure Ontario) and managed by TRCA, and the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East (175 hectares) owned and managed by TRCA. The two sites were integrated following the completion of the ORCPE Management Plan in 2011. Together these properties form 603 hectares of prime Oak Ridges Moraine landscape on the border of the Humber River and Rouge River watersheds in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York. The ORCCR is located west of Leslie Street, south of Bethesda Sideroad, east of Bathurst Street, and north of Jefferson Sideroad and Stouffville Road. The ORCCR is a rich natural area that includes wetlands, kettle lakes and forests, supporting many unique wildlife and plant species. The Reserve includes a significant network of popular recreational trails including a section of the main spine of the Oak Ridges Trail, connecting this trail network to the regional Oak Ridges Trail system, and a portion of the Lake-to-Lake Trail, York Region’s active transportation trail initiative to connect Lake Simcoe to Lake Ontario. The management of the ORCP property is guided by the Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan (2006). A key objective of this plan was to enable passive recreational uses that welcome and accommodate local residents, supporting the development of trail linkages for neighbouring communities to the main Oak Ridges Trail. The management of the ORCPE property is guided by the Oak Ridges Corridor Park East Management Plan (2011). As part of the trail plan component of this Management Plan, cycling is permitted on the main spine trail but not on any secondary trails. The Management Plan recognizes the importance of public use opportunities to encourage stewardship and emphasizes the need to minimize impacts on the natural environment. At the time of the plan, cycling on secondary trails was considered and the need for an organized group to assist with management of the trails was identified. No such group stepped forward to assume these responsibilities. Therefore, cycling on secondary trails was excluded as a permitted use. RATIONALE Two distinct yet related trail planning needs for the ORCCR have been raised through community advocacy. TRCA’s completion of these trail planning projects will further ensure that the trail network on the ORCCR can meet the needs of a growing community, providing sustainable options for trail use that are supported by the community and will discourage informal and unauthorized trails. The MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage project will address the need for a trail connection near the MacLeod Estate and Philips Lake, from the main Oak Ridges Trail within the ORCP property to a neighbourhood of approximately 1,000 homes, as well as the MacLeod’s Landing Public School. 642 This new neighbourhood was not fully established when the ORCP Management Plan was developed in 2006. The lack of a trail connection creates the risk of informal trails, as the neighbourhood has expressed eagerness for a trail linkage into the Reserve. An Addendum to the ORCP Management Plan to address the MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage will establish an appropriate trail connection for the community. This project is being undertaken in partnership with the Town of Richmond Hill, the Province of Ontario (Infrastructure Ontario), and The Gordon and Patricia Gray Foundation. The Cycling on Secondary Trails project will plan for cycling uses on secondary trails within the ORCPE property. At the time that the ORCPE Management Plan was approved in 2011, there was no organized mountain biking or cycling club in the area that was willing to manage cycling trails and the cycling users. Therefore, cycling was restricted to the primary trail in the trail plan. Since the management plan was approved, the Durham Mountain Biking Association (DMBA) has expressed a desire to steward mountain biking trails on the TRCA lands in the Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve. An update to the ORCPE will assess appropriate cycling routes on secondary trails within the property. This project is being undertaken in partnership with the Town of Richmond Hill and the DMBA. These two projects are being undertaken concurrently. It is anticipated that these projects will have similar internal and external key stakeholders, and the surrounding community will likely be interested in both projects. The interrelated nature of this work will create efficiencies in project communications and workflow. Also, it is the intent of the Province of Ontario and TRCA that the ORCCR be managed cohesively, and undertaking these two projects under one overarching process furthers the consideration of trail planning issues collectively on the entire public land property. FINANCIAL DETAILS MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage: A grant for $75,000 is being applied for through the OTF. If the grant application is successful, the Town of Richmond Hill will contribute $160,000 to this project. The Town of Richmond Hill has also agreed to work with TRCA to secure additional funding sources. In addition, The Gordon and Patricia Gray Foundation has committed $100,000 to this project’s implementation. The secured funds for this project will cover the planning process and a portion of implementation, with the final construction costs being determined through the planning process. Cycling on Secondary Trails: The funding for this project has been budgeted as part of TRCA’s York Conservation Land Care Program, under account 442-94. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE These trail planning projects will be undertaken within an ecosystem framework and in consultation with the community to ensure watershed health, public enjoyment and environmental sustainability. The combined planning process will be undertaken in three phases: Phase 1: Initial Site Scoping and Evaluation Inventory ORCCR physical environment, natural environment, land use context in the study areas Inventory existing ORCCR trails in the study areas Phase 2: Trail Planning Establish a TRCA staff technical advisory committee concerned with both projects, host meeting Establish a TRCA public advisory committee concerned with both projects, host meeting 643 Engage with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry regarding the MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage project (and the Cycling on Secondary Trails project if necessary) Initiate on-line engagement Develop and evaluate trail alignment alternatives for the MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage project, including trail connections to the ORCCR main spine trail and supporting trail amenities, such as parking, signage and resting areas Finalize cycling route alternatives for the Cycling on Secondary Trails project, including the designation of existing trails as cycling routes, identification of new authorized cycling trails, and the closure of unauthorized mountain biking trails Consult on pedestrian trails with the Town of Richmond Hill Accessibility Advisory Committee, as per the requirements in Ontario Regulation 191/11 Integrated Accessibility Standards Host a joint public information centre Host meetings with the staff technical advisory committee and the public advisory committee Develop management recommendations and a detailed implementation plan for the MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage project Develop management recommendations and a detailed implementation plan for the Cycling on Secondary Trails project Drafting and finalization of the Addendum to the ORCP Management Plan – MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage Drafting and finalization of the Update to the ORCPE Management Plan – Cycling on Secondary Trails Phase 3: Trail Plan Publication Obtain DBMA endorsement of the Update to the ORCPE Management Plan – Cycling on Secondary Trails Obtain ORTA endorsement of the Addendum to the ORCP Management Plan – MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage and the Update to the ORCPE Management Plan – Cycling on Secondary Trails Obtain Town of Richmond Hill Council endorsement of the Addendum to the ORCP Management Plan – MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage and the Update to the ORCPE Management Plan – Cycling on Secondary Trails Obtain Authority approval for the Addendum to the ORCP Management Plan – MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage and the Update to the ORCPE Management Plan – Cycling on Secondary Trails Circulate the Addendum to the ORCP Management Plan – MacLeod Estate Trail Linkage to Infrastructure Ontario Fulfill OTF grant requirements for recognition and reporting Regular updates with project partners will ensure all parties are informed of their project’s status and can discuss issues or opportunities for support. Report prepared by: Corinna Thomassen-Darby, extension 5625 Emails: corinna.thomassen-daby@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Bender, extension 5287, Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204 Emails: mbender@trca.on.ca, dcheriton@trca.on.ca Date: December 11, 2017 Attachments: 2 644 ")400 ")407 ")404 0 2 41km F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its lic ens ors . [2017] May Not be Reproduc ed without Permis s ion. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map ORCCR # ^SITE ROUGE DON HUMBER Legend Waters hed Waterc ours e TRCA Property Oak Ridges Corridor Cons ervation Res erve Attachment 1 645 KING RD N LAKE R D B L O O M I N G T O N R D B A T H U R S T S T Y O N G E S T J E F F E R S O N S I D E R D 19TH AVE SUNSET BE A C H R D BA Y V I E W A V E S T O U F F V I L L E R D BETHESDA S I D E R D 0 500 1,000250 Meters F © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2017] May Not b e Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. PEEL YORK DURHAM TORONTO Lake Ontario Key Map Legend Authorized Trail ORCCR Provincial Lands ORCCR TRCA Lands Watercourses TRCA Property Secondary Cycling Trails ProjectStudy Area # ^SITE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Macleod Estate TrailLinSktaugdey PArroejaect # Attachment 2 646 RES.#A234/17 - HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Request to Undertake Request for Proposal Process. A request for approval to undertake a Request for Proposal to explore an integrated human resources and payroll software solution, with the goal of optimizing the administration and reporting of these functions. Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jennifer Innis WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) payroll and human resource functions are currently operated independently, and staff has determined that operational efficiencies can be realized through a single integrated human resource information system (HRIS); AND WHEREAS TRCA continues to seek ways in which to improve employee onboarding, off-boarding and the employee life cycle including time and attendance, learning and education, performance management and health and safety; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a Request for Proposal process be undertaken to explore how systems integration may improve the ability of TRCA to administer and report on TRCA’s key resource – its employees. CARRIED BACKGROUND Human Resources and Finance are responsible for the administration, reporting, management and oversight of all matters related to the employment of all TRCA employees. These matters range from recruitment, job postings, interviews, onboarding, compensation, performance, payroll processing, pension and benefits administration, time and attendance, learning and education, and health and safety. Since 2001, Finance has been using an in-house customized payroll software. The software allows for certain employee self-service and manager self-service capabilities, and also handles all payroll functions such as bi-weekly pay, deductions, remittances, T4’s and records of employment. A primary challenge of the customized in-house system is that it requires considerable manual data entry and manual calculations be determined and administered by the payroll staff, as well as upgrades and testing performed by payroll staff. Human resource functions such as recruitment, onboarding, compensation, learning and education, and health and safety are housed on various software platforms. These software platforms are operated independently of one other, thereby, increasing the risk of certain operational inefficiencies. In order to continue supporting the existing in-house payroll system into 2019, the organization will be required to pay $80,000 for a mandatory system upgrade carried out by TRCA staff. Consequently, there is an interest to explore alternative integrated solutions in the marketplace as part of the organization’s continuous improvement objective. RATIONALE The overall objective of Human Resources and Finance is to explore ways in which the existing systems and processes of the two teams can come together and operate as seamlessly as possible. The development of a single system for human resources and payroll functions will result in a number of advantages to the organization, including: 647 automation of manual processes; improved user experience for all staff; improved compliance tracking and reporting abilities; improved time, attendance and scheduling abilities; elimination of the requirement to maintain and upgrade the software internally; reduction in various indirect costs. FINANCIAL DETAILS As part of the exploration process of various HRIS solutions, management of costs will be a priority, and included as a key consideration in the request for proposal document. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will undertake an RFP process to determine the most suitable HRIS solution available in the market to optimize the administration and reporting of the various functions on a cost-effective basis, and staff will report back to the Authority with a report of the findings. Report prepared by: Pamela Papadopoulos, extension 5973 Emails: pamela.papadopoulos@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Pamela Papadopoulos, extension 5973; Victoria Kinniburgh, extension 5374 Emails: pamela.papadopoulos@trca.on.ca; vkinniburgh@trca.on.ca Date: December 15, 2017 ______________________________ RES.#A235/17 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND 14 Pickering/Scarborough Townline, City of Toronto, Rouge River Watershed, CFN 33517. Receipt of a request from Melissa Preston and Laura Alderson, Co-Executors of Joyce Scott’s Estate, (former tenant of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) to consider the sale of a portion of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority owned land located at 14 Pickering/Scarborough Townline, City of Toronto, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res.#B107/17) Moved by: Jim Karygiannis Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned property at 14 Pickering/Scarborough Townline, in the City of Toronto, be retained in TRCA ownership until such time as it is conveyed to Parks Canada for the Rouge Urban National Park. CARRIED ______________________________ 648 RES.#A236/17 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND 4156 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke, City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed, CFN 45819. Recommendation that the subject Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned land located north of Dundas Street West and east of Prince Edward Drive, municipally known as 4156 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke, in the City of Toronto, Humber River watershed, be retained in TRCA ownership. (Executive Res.#B108/17 & Res.#B109/17) Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned (TRCA) land at 4156 Dundas Street West, Etobicoke, in the City of Toronto, be retained in TRCA ownership at this time; THAT TRCA staff work with City of Toronto staff and the adjacent landowners to assess the suitability of the subject TRCA land for use as parkland as part of the Dundas Street West Avenue Study and as part of any future redevelopment of surrounding area; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to a future Executive Committee meeting on the results of the discussions with City of Toronto staff. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A237/17- GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Build Toronto Inc., CFN 55477. Acquisition of a conservation easement located east of Jane Street and north of St. Clair Avenue West – 200 Rockcliffe Court, in the City of Toronto, Etobicoke York Community Council Area, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B110/17) Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Michael Ford THAT item 10.1.3 – Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-202, Build Toronto Inc., be deferred to Authority Meeting #11/17, scheduled to be held on January 26, 2017; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work in cooperation with Build Toronto Inc., City of Toronto staff and the local Councillor with the goal of ensuring that the high risk floodplain is protected and that the natural heritage system is maximized. CARRIED ______________________________ 649 RES.#A238/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Pine Valley (FGH) Inc., CFN 58765. Acquisition of property located south of Regional Road 7 and west of Pine Valley Drive, municipally known as 4603 to 4611 Regional Road 7, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B111/17) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Glenn Mason THAT 0.7205 hectares (1.78 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Regional Road 7 and west of Pine Valley Drive, said land being Part of Lot 29, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 9831 and Part of Lot 4, Registered Plan 4319, designated as the “Valleyland” block on the draft Plan A101, Site Plan and Statistics, prepared by Graziani Corazza Architects, dated January 19, 2017 municipally known as 4603 to 4611 Regional Road 7, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Pine Valley (FGH) Inc.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gowling WLG, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A239/17 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed 4208-4214 Dundas Street West (VI) Ltd., CFN 58842. Acquisition of property located north of Dundas Street West and east of Royal York Road, municipally known as 4208-4214 Dundas Street West, in the City of Toronto, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B112/17) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Glenn Mason 650 THAT 0.3650 hectares (0.9109 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Dundas Street West and east of Royal York Road, said land being Part of Lot 94, 95 and William Street, Registered Plan 234 and Part of Lot 10, Concession C, Fronting the Humber designated as Parts 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on draft Registered Plan, Drawing No. 10-313RP02 prepared by Krcmar dated August 2017, municipally known as 4208 to 4214 Dundas Street West, in the City of Toronto, be purchased from 4208-4214 Dundas Street West (VI) Ltd.; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gowling WLG, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A240/17 - LAKE WILCOX SPECIAL POLICY AREA Comprehensive Policy and Boundary Update, Town of Richmond Hill. The Town of Richmond Hill is updating the policies and boundary of the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area based upon a comprehensive flood risk management and planning analysis in accordance with provincial guidelines. The Authority is requested to endorse the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that will implement the updated Special Policy Area policies and boundary. (Executive Res.#B113/17) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Glenn Mason WHEREAS the Town of Richmond Hill, in collaboration with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), has undertaken a comprehensive review to update the policies and boundary of the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area (SPA) in accordance with provincial guidelines for amending the policies and boundaries of existing SPAs; AND WHEREAS the Town of Richmond Hill has proposed amendments to the policies and mapping in their Official Plan and Zoning By-law associated with the Lake Wilcox SPA, based upon this comprehensive review; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has reviewed the proposed amendments and support the updates as proposed; 651 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority endorse the request of the Town of Richmond Hill to update the policies and boundary of the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area through an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment for approval; AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Richmond Hill, the Region of York, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry be so advised by the CEO’s Office. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A241/17 - EAST DON TRAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT – PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 Design-Build Request for Proposal #10005933 – Phase 1 and Design-Build Request for Proposal #10006438 – Phase 2. Award of Contract #10005933 and Contract #10006438 for engineering and construction services in support of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the East Don Trail Project, in the City of Toronto. (Executive Res.#B114/17) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Glenn Mason THAT Contract #10005933 for engineering and construction services in support of Phase 1 of the East Don Trail Construction Project, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Metric Contracting Services Corporation at a total cost not to exceed $9,949,934.01, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT Contract #10006438 for the engineering and construction services in support of Phase 2 of the East Don Trail Construction Project, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Metric Contracting Services Corporation at a total cost not to exceed $9,797,493.62, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets TRCA specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% of the contract cost for each contract as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ 652 RES.#A242/17 - KORTRIGHT VISITOR’S CENTRE RENOVATION PROJECT Contracted Construction Services for Renovations to Washrooms and Classrooms. Award of Contract #10006491 for contracted construction services to undertake renovations of the washrooms and classrooms at the Kortright Centre’s Visitor’s Centre. (Executive Res.#B115/17) Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Glenn Mason THAT Contract #10006491 for contracted construction services, including hazardous material abatement, to undertake renovations of the washrooms and classrooms at the Kortright Centre’s Visitor’s Centre be awarded to Anacond Contracting Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $373,563.05, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets TRCA specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 25% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT staff be authorized to direct Anacond Contracting Inc. to proceed immediately, upon approval by the Executive Committee, with the labour, material and equipment to perform asbestos and other hazardous material abatement prior to removals and renovations, during the holiday closure and into January, to mitigate health and safety concerns, as well as disruptions to organized events and to staff; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A243/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis THAT Section II items 10.2.1 – 10.2.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #10/17, held on December 15, 2017, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 10.2.1 – 10.2.4, Inclusive ROOF AND EAVES TROUGH REPLACEMENTS FOR ROUGE PARK RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PORTFOLIO (Executive Res.#B116/17) 653 SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTING SERVICES (Executive Res.#B117/17) LAB SERVICES (Executive Res.#B118/17) EAST HUMBER HEADWATERS PARK (Executive Res.#B121/17) ______________________________ Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A244/17 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT item 10.3 - Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #10/17, held on December 15, 2017, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ NEW BUSINESS MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA RES.#A245/17 Moved by: Vincent Crisanti Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT the Committee go into closed session to discuss an ongoing Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, as it pertains to ongoing legal matters. CARRIED RES.#A246/17 Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT the update on the ongoing Ontario Municipal Board Hearing be received. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES.#A147/17 Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT the Committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED 654 RES.#A148/17 Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT the in camera update on the ongoing Ontario Municipal Board Hearing be received. CARRIED ______________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:05 a.m., on Friday, January 05, 2018. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks John MacKenzie Secretary-Treasurer 655 Authority Meeting #11/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, January 26, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ron Chopowick Member Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Brenda Hogg Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member ABSENT Paula Fletcher Member Jennifer Innis Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member A moment of silence was observed in memory of Authority Member Jim Tovey. ______________________________ RES.#A149/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Jim Karygiannis Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti THAT the Minutes of Meeting #10/17, held on January 5, 2018, be approved. CARRIED ______________________________ 656 PRESENTATIONS 5.1 A presentation by Rachael Wraith, Senior Communications Officer, Town of Ajax, in regard to item 8.1 - Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative Conference. RES.#A150/17- PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT above-noted presentation 5.1 be received. CARRIED ______________________________ 657 Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A151/17 - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DELIVERY AND FEE UPDATE, 2018-2019 Assessment of cost recovery and service delivery supporting the 2018-2019 Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services Fee Schedules. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Linda Pabst WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) establishes fee schedules for all plan review services that aim to achieve a 100% cost recovery target for the development review functions; WHEREAS staff has committed to monitor the trends in submission demand, level of service, cost recovery and necessary revisions on a biennial basis and report back to the Authority on the status of cost recovery and service delivery; WHEREAS TRCA follows the guidelines from the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees and TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, which is the relevant guiding document at this time, and has applied a base fee adjustment for cost of living for every two years, in addition to provision of a comprehensive level of service /cost recovery assessment; AND WHEREAS TRCA has consulted on the proposed new fee schedule and cost recovery assessment with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) and has considered their recommendations prior to seeking Authority approval; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the fee adjustment proposal be approved as outlined within this report and that new 2018-2019 fee schedules be effective February 1, 2018. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA regulates development in valley and stream corridors, wetlands, flood and erosion prone areas, and along the Lake Ontario shoreline, and reviews and comments on development proposals and applications within or adjacent to these natural areas. By doing so, TRCA aims to prevent, eliminate or reduce the risk to life and property from flooding, erosion and slope instability, and to encourage the protection and enhancement of natural systems. TRCA provides municipalities with advice on applications made under the Planning Act and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. This includes review of applications made pursuant to the Niagara Escarpment Pla Ontario Planning and Development Act, the Central Pickering Development Plan, the Parkway Belt Plan, and other applicable legislation. TRCA provides technical and scientific expertise to support the environmental planning function of municipalities as well as to assist the development community and individual landowners to make informed decisions on how development should proceed to maintain and enhance or restore the natural environment. Through this function, TRCA assists the development community and the public to prevent and mitigate natural hazard-based risks, while maintaining and where possible enhancing the health of our watersheds. 658 In a similar fashion to municipal partners, TRCA assesses fees for services to recover the costs of delivering the services. Historically TRCA has recovered less than 100% of the actual cost. In 2011 the Authority directed staff to achieve full cost recovery for eligible planning and development services. Maintaining full cost recovery is an on-going process, as the costs of providing the services increase annually. Additionally, file volumes (which effect both workload and revenue) are not within the control of TRCA staff and are subject to change. Based upon monitoring revenues, costs and file volumes, and adapting the fee schedules in 2013 and 2016, in response to these changes, TRCA reached 100% cost recovery in 2015 and have maintained it since that time. The proposed modifications to the 2018-2019 fee schedules are also predicted to maintain 100% cost recovery, while providing for the increasing costs of staff, and changes in staffing to address the increased workload volume. Current Fee Schedules The last comprehensive fee schedule adjustment and cost recovery assessment for TRCA’s Planning and Development function was completed in January, 2016. At that time, the 2016-2017 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule was approved by the Authority (Resolution #A259/15). Planning and Development staff has monitored the project review demands and revenue flow over the last two years to determine the current level of service and cost recovery. The assessment meets the Province of Ontario’s guidelines and TRCA’s Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fees Policy/Guideline 2009. Primary Objectives for the 2018-2019 Fee Schedules Planning and Development staff assess the volume and evolving nature of the applications that TRCA processes on an on-going basis. Based upon this assessment, staff has identified priority areas to be addressed in this fee schedule update. Accordingly, there are four primary objectives for this fee schedule review: 1. Maintain 100% cost recovery; 2. Incorporate a cost of living increase of 5% (2.5%/year increase for two years); 3. Include costs associated with the functions that have not been incorporated to date; 4. Provide for additional funding for addressing staffing deficiencies, where required to meet service delivery standards and per planner/technical staff file ratios. RATIONALE Trends in Workload and Service Delivery Planning and Development has assessed the workload volume and types of application reviews conducted for both 2016 and 2017. TRCA continues to experience a consistently high volume of planning and permitting applications, including large scale secondary plans, block plans and associated MESP (Master Environmental Servicing Plans), as well as technically complex submissions. Many of these applications are part of new growth area projects. Staff has also observed that the nature of the applications is changing. Some of these changes include: Increasing complexity and duration of planning applications requiring more senior staff involvement and more staff resources. Increasing demand for expedited review and faster clearances has put pressure on TRCA teams, and frequently exceeds TRCA’s current capacity. Most files are considered ‘high priority’ files by applicants and municipalities. Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal appeals with environmental issues as a result of ‘non decision’ within Planning Act timeframes continue to increase, diverting TRCA review efforts away from the standard review stream. 659 As the scope of submission increases, fewer submissions are sufficiently integrated, putting more pressure on TRCA to manage the synthesis of supporting technical submissions. The quality of the submissions that TRCA is receiving. Project management gaps on the applicant’s side. Due to specialized technical requirements, development, infrastructure, expedited reviews, OMB and new growth areas must involve many of the same team members at TRCA, resulting in competing workloads and increasing time demands for the same team members. The transition from the OMB to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal is not anticipated to result in reduced involvement for TRCA in appeals due to an increase in appeals and uncertain timing of regulations related to Bill 139. Attachment 1 and 2 provide a summary of submissions by type of application and municipality (respectively) for the last five years including 2016 and 2017. The following is a brief summary of the volume of files. In 2016 and 2017, TRCA: Received more than 1,300 new permit applications each year; Processed more than 850 new planning applications each year in addition to carry-over files; Reviewed 385 infrastructure projects in 2016 (in addition to permits) – a steady increase from 129 projects in 2011; Processed an average of 1,000 solicitor/realtor enquiries. Additionally, TRCA: • Actively participates in OMB hearings affecting TRCA’s interests – increased from 18 in 2011 to 45 in 2017; • Continues to be an active participant in new community planning for an average of 15-20 new communities at any given time. Planning Applications The volume of new planning applications has increased steadily year-over-year. A “new norm” for the volume of planning applications was reached in 2015, in which over 800 new planning applications (exclusive of concept development applications, solicitor-realtor enquiries and permit applications) were received each year, with the total number growing each year. In 2017, a record number of 940 planning applications were received. In terms of volume of applications, the Town of Richmond Hill, cities of Toronto, Vaughan and Markham, and the Town of Caledon had the highest numbers of planning applications submitted to TRCA, respectively. Although these municipalities produce the greatest number of applications, over the past five years the relative number of applications in a number of other municipalities within York Region (Markham, Whitchurch-Stouffville and King) have shown the most notable growth. All other municipalities remained steady or had fluctuating numbers of applications. Attachment 7 provides a summary of planning applications received in 2017 by municipality. 660 Permit Applications The number of TRCA (Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended) permit applications has steadily increased over the last eight years. Each year, the volume of permit applications has increased an average of 10%, year-over-year. In 2016 and 2017 there was a further marked increase in the number of permit applications submitted, with approximately 20% year-over-year growth. In 2017, the number of permit applications increased to a record number of 1,462 permit applications. This year-over-year increase in the volume of permit applications is significant in terms of the workload volume for the Development Planning and technical review teams. For the five-year period between 2013 and 2017, the volume of permit applications has increased in the rapidly expanding York Region municipalities of Vaughan and King, while permit numbers have remained strong and have grown within the City of Toronto (particularly Etobicoke York and North York). Within the other areas of TRCA’s jurisdiction, including TRCA’s portions of Durham Region (Ajax and Pickering), Peel Region (Brampton and Caledon), and other areas of York Region (Markham and Richmond Hill), the permit application numbers have remained consistent and have grown at a slower pace. Attachment 6 provides a summary of planning applications received in 2017 by municipality. With the significant volume of new permits, as well as on-going permits, TRCA’s compliance team conducted more than 4,500 permit site inspections in 2017. Large-Scale Planning Projects and Infrastructure TRCA Development Planning and Policy teams are working together to assist municipal partners with Special Policy Area updates. Growth area MESP’s tied to new growth, secondary plan and block plan projects consumed a huge effort in 2016 and 2017. A significant workload volume will continue for these growth areas, spread through Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, Caledon, Brampton and Seaton. The number of OMB hearings has increased significantly as an outcome of several Official Plan reviews in Richmond Hill, Mississauga, Brampton and Vaughan, as well as site-specific appeals. TRCA senior staff was actively involved in 45 hearings in 2017, many of which are multiple appellant appeals. A major shift in service demand continues with increases in expedited reviews driven by the applicants, the municipalities and/or by OMB appeals. These service delivery pressures are being felt by not just TRCA but by municipal partners as well. Fluctuations commonly occur with “base” planning and permitting applications from year to year, but a major shift to process growth area studies with municipal partners will continue to be a huge part of a growing workload for 2018-2019. Senior project management and technical capabilities are required from TRCA to support these complex efforts both for greenfield and urban intensification. Staff is projecting that there will be significant effort required in the planning of the future urban areas of Brampton, Caledon, Vaughan, King, Markham, Richmond Hill, Seaton and the intensification areas within the Toronto and Mississauga, for 2018-2019, on top of the regular base submissions. Plan review continues to be technically complex as applications move into more sensitive landscapes with water balance considerations involving engineering modeling updates, geotechnical and hydrogeology expertise. TRCA engineering and hydrogeology staff complement is under increasing service pressure. 661 Environmental Assessment Trends TRCA has dedicated service level agreements (SLAs) with municipal and agency partners, as well as the private sector, that have been negotiated on an as requested basis based on client needs and TRCA requirements. The SLAs each provide dedicated planning and technical review teams, detailed and expedited service delivery standards, detailed project tracking and reporting, monthly or quarterly partnership review meetings, defined communications procedures, and commitments for TRCA staff to work remotely from the partner office up to one day per week. The fees are negotiated annually through the municipal capital delivery programs, including water and wastewater, roads and transit services. Service agreements began in 2005, and are currently in place with York and Peel regions, the City of Brampton, Enbridge Gas, Metrolinx Rapid Transit Implementation (RTI), Metrolinx-GO and the Toronto Transit Commission for the Toronto-York Subway Extension (TYSSE) project, as well as the North Pickering Community Management Incorporate for infrastructure review associated with the Seaton development. The SLAs are continually refined to meet shifts in service demand. Between 2011 and 2013/2014, the Environmental Assessment team has increased their agreement-based revenue from approximately $1.2 million in 2011 to $1.8 million. Service agreement and non-service agreement services (funded through fee cost recovery) achieve 100% cost recovery for planning, technical and support services as well as corporate overhead costs. The York Region SLA has been in place since 2005, and includes a significant commitment toward expedited review of applications, ranging between 10 and 20 business days depending on the application type and level of review required. The agreement includes review services for all transportation, water, wastewater and transit services. York Region is the fastest growing municipality in Canada, and the provision of infrastructure is a core deliverable of the municipality. The Peel Region and City of Brampton SLAs have also been in place since 2005. Project volumes have decreased in the past five years as infrastructure development has been focused in the Credit Valley Conservation Authority jurisdiction rather than TRCA. With the opening of the TYSSE project to Vaughan last year, TRCAs work on this file has decreased significantly. This agreement is expected to end in 2018-19. The Enbridge Gas SLA has been in place since 2013, and has grown significantly in terms of applications for private users, expansion and maintenance projects, as well as relocations that are required to facilitate other infrastructure projects. The most significant increase in work, both over the past two years and anticipated for the future, is with Metrolinx. TRCA has two SLA’s with Metrolinx, one in the City of Toronto for the RTI program, and the other for GO and SmartTrack projects. TRCA will shift its review of the Eglinton Light Rail Transit (LRT) to the Finch LRT in 2018; it is anticipated that review of both projects will continue until construction is underway/complete. In terms of the Metrolinx-GO projects, TRCA anticipates significant work in all jurisdictions as the electrification program is implemented, as commuter hubs are planned, and as stations are either built or expanded. TRCA is also working with Metrolinx with respect to defining a compensation strategy, impacts to infrastructure based on climate change impacts, synergies for trail linkages, and synergies related to TRCA erosion control construction projects. Proposal for 2018- 2019 Cost Recovery An inflationary increase to all applicable fees, and additional modifications to specific fees is required. Staff is not recommending an increase to all fees beyond the inflationary increase at this time, but rather an adjustment to those application types that are putting more time/cost pressure on the staffing complement. This strategy is projected to maintain 100% cost recovery. The strategy includes: 662 A 5% cost of living increase that applies to most fees (based upon a 2.5% per year increase); Scoped increases to a small number of types of planning and permit applications. The cost of living inflationary increase will help to cover modest staff adjustments going forward into 2018. In order to continue to meet the conflicting demands on TRCA’s technical staff team, additional staff will be required. Although the changes in fees in the proposed 2018-2019 fee schedules are modest, and limited to only a few fee categories, modifications to some of the fees that are not currently covering the cost of delivering the service are expected to provide some additional revenue to meet additional staffing needs. The Fee Collection Challenge Achieving 100% cost recovery is a constantly evolving target, as TRCA cannot control the number of files and permit applications that are submitted for review. Forecasting is not perfect, and 100% cost recovery must include a margin of flexibility, as TRCA is only able to collect fees to cover the cost of the services provided, and cannot run a surplus over multiple years. Factors outside of TRCA control may influence our ability to achieve 100% cost recovery from year to year in the future. It is clear that potential future reductions in volume will affect fees collected. Planning and Development staff will continue to monitor TRCA’s performance in achieving 100% cost recovery, and on a biennial basis, TRCA will adjust and adapt the fee schedules as required, to respond to changing market forces. Planning and Permitting Fee Schedule In addition to an inflationary increase, the focus of the proposed changes to the 2018-2019 Planning and Permitting fee schedules are principally for the following purposes: Provide a balanced approach: Most of the fee categories in both the planning and permitting fee schedules are not changing beyond the 5% cost of living increase; Some fee categories are being modified and reduced where the categories have not been a good fit for the types of applications received over the past several years; Some fee categories will remain unchanged. For example, the MESP fees are remaining the same, without a cost of living increase, as the analysis indicates that they continue to be appropriate, with the other optional fees that are available; Major and Complex application fees are not increasing beyond the cost of living amount; Fees associated with individual residential properties, including permits, planning applications and concept development applications, are only changing by the cost of living increase. Solicitor-realtor enquiries are not being modified, and no cost of living increase is being applied to these. Key Areas of Change The following key changes are proposed to the 2018-2019 fee schedules: Planning Site plan applications – minor, standard and multi-unit; 663 Permitting Minor permit fees associated with large-scale works; Standard permit fees associated with large-scale works. Environmental Assessment Fee Schedule Cost of living increase; Clarification edits/additions in the text based on feedback from municipal and agency staff, and consultants. Attachments 3, 4 and 5 provide the updated proposals for the Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fee Schedules, inclusive of the recommendations included above. Consultation with BILD and Municipal Partners The building industry (represented by BILD) has been very helpful in providing their input into TRCA’s Planning and Permitting fee schedules. As part of the fee review process Planning and Development staff consulted with BILD to attain their comments on the proposed changes. A formal presentation was provided to BILD representatives on December 14, 2017 to discuss the draft Planning and Permitting fee schedules. At the presentation BILD representatives were provided with copies of the draft fee schedules for their comments and consideration. BILD provided a response letter on January 12, 2018, with their comments (Attachment 8). BILD does not object to proposed Planning and Permitting fee schedules. However, the comment letter provided by BILD includes several specific comments and recommendations. These include: creating a dedicated site plan review team, updating memoranda of understanding (MOU) with municipalities, standardizing review times and providing additional training. These comments are appreciated, and will be considered further by TRCA’s Senior Leadership Team in TRCA’s on-going review of operational efficiencies and organizational priorities. Staff also consulted with its municipal partners through their regular Environmental Assessment meetings and one on one discussions with municipal staff. Level of Service Staff involved in the Planning and Development function attempt to dynamically shift resources to address the workload. TRCA has service delivery guidelines, not mandated timelines, but these guidelines represent the service delivery that TRCA strives to offer. TRCA works to a service delivery guideline of 30-45 days for standard files. Very complex technical reviews take longer (60-90 days). In many areas the service delivery target is met or surpassed: Straight-forward applications that meet policy (Committee of Adjustment, minor to standard site plans, minor Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law amendments), compliance is in excess of 90%; Complex applications (MESP, subdivisions, condominium) meet the service delivery guideline approximately 75% of the time in Durham, Peel and Toronto; Permitting maintains 80 to 90% adherence to provincial guidelines. New permitting efficiencies with staff delegation continue to provide an opportunity for enhancements; Tight adherence in Environmental Assessment service agreements 85% (minimum), 70% for non-agreements. Level of Service Needing Further Consideration For complex applications in York Region the volumes of applications, appeals and submission issues (noted above) have exceeded TRCA’s capacity to maintain the service delivery target. 664 In 2017, Complex applications within York Region such as subdivisions and condominium applications, exceeded the review time target as follows: 27% of reviews were one week beyond target review time; 19% of reviews were two weeks beyond target review time; 15% were 3-4 weeks beyond target review time, and; 3% more than four weeks beyond target review time. The Environmental Assessment team tracks and reports on a tight service delivery standard for its service delivery partners, and meets these standards 85-95% of the time. For non-service delivery partners, regular standards are met approximately 85% of the time. Through analysis staff has determined: Improving upon service delivery is not just a staffing issue; BILD partners need to be part of the solution: OMB - ‘precautionary’ and ‘non decision’ appeals delay the process by diverting resources; Lack of coordination between landowners, competing timelines (between landowners, peak loading) and submission quality issues will continue to exceed the review capacity of public agencies, regardless of staff complement; Recognize the implications of condensing the planning process; planning is not following a linear process (i.e. concurrent secondary plan, MESP, subdivision, site plan). Details are being deferred to future planning stages, and becoming issues once finally dealt with; Project management of timelines and coordination of submissions; Higher quality submissions and better project management surrounding submissions. York Region is the fastest growing area, with the highest volume of planning applications within TRCA’s jurisdiction. York Region is split between two development planning teams at TRCA for better coverage, however, there are significant pressures for file review, given the volume of planning and permitting files. TRCA’s review team will need to be enhanced to maintain requisite service levels and review time standards within York Region. Additional staff was added to the planning team in 2017 to assist with the workload in York Region. Based upon review of service level deficiencies, additional staffing of the technical review team is required for TRCA’s York Region review team. Proposed Changes 2018-2019 At this time, staff is proposing a two-pronged approach to address supply and demand: 1. Optimize and slightly increase capacity (Supply Side Management): Split TRCA’s development review engineering team for files within York Region into two teams, York West and York East, with the addition of one new engineer; An additional geotechnical engineer has been hired to address the significant workload volume on that small team; An additional senior planning ecologist will be hired to provide for greater review capacity, and reduce the workload on an overloaded team. Extend contracts for contract planners working on files within York Region. These changes are only anticipated to address existing service level gapswithin TRCA’s service delivery targets. 665 2. Optimize Efficiency Work with BILD members to improve quality of submissions and to address project management gaps. 2018 – Joint TRCA/BILD executive and professional membership dialogue on “the perfect submission”. Provide workshop sessions for BILD members and potentially other professional organizations, to improve understanding of submission standards necessary to expedite review. Continue with the review and implementation of internal efficiency improvements. Efficiency in Operations The Plan Review teams have continued to run as lean as possible with minor staffing adjustments to redistribute staffing skills covering submission demands. The following overview provides a snapshot of the planning team coverage and numbers of new applications per year/per planner/per team (2017): Peel /York East Team (includes Markham and Richmond Hill) New Planning and Concept Applications: 560 Permits: 290 Total new files – exclusive of Large-Scale projects, OMB, Policy Initiatives: 850 (managed by nine full time equivalents (FTE)) plus carry-over files (approx. 50%): Additional 425 Toronto/Durham Team (includes Ajax, Pickering, Uxbridge) Planning Applications 312 Permits 443 Total new files – exclusive of Large-Scale projects, OMB, Policy Initiatives: 755 (managed by seven FTE) plus carry-over files (approx. 50%): 377 Vaughan/York West Team (includes Aurora, King, Whitchurch-Stouffville) Planning Applications: 286 Permits: 212 Total files – exclusive of Large-Scale projects, OMB, Policy Initiatives: 498 (managed by eight FTE) Carry-over files (approx. 50%): 249 Each TRCA planner is managing between 100-150 files per year including a significant carry- over file base from previous years. This does not include responsibilities for other strategic efforts to assist municipalities such as internal and external committees, pre-consultation and development application review collaborations, working meetings with applicants, OMB hearings, policy initiatives, Special Policy Area (SPA) projects, etc. The Environmental Assessment team’s base workload has remained steady for lower tier and agency infrastructure, and for several municipalities in Peel, York, Brampton and Toronto. TRCA continued to expand our service delivery capability through new service agreements to foster more responsive service delivery and dedicated staff involvement in submission review. 666 Streamlining Efforts TRCA continues to work to increase efficiency and to enhance customer service. Key areas of focus in the recent past have been targeted towards providing a suite of pre-consultation options, the foundation of which is based upon making TRCA’s information and requirements known as early in the planning process as possible. These initiatives have been well utilized, and staff will continue to monitor and refine these programs to ensure that they are providing the best service possible. For 2018-2019: additional streamlining efforts will be reviewed and implemented to optimize the efficiency of reviews and the allocation of staff time; staff is committed to reviewing the types of permits for which the approval is delegated to staff, to determine whether additional types of permits can be delegated to enhance processing timelines; staff will work with BILD members to discuss improvements to the quality of submissions to TRCA, to reduce processing time, and the number of revisions that are required. Over this time period staff will also continue to work with municipal partners to provide additional opportunities for digital submissions. The technical collaborative approach and services that TRCA senior staff provides to municipalities and applicants in all areas of environmental planning, engineering and ecology saves municipalities the cost of individualized consulting and peer review funds associated with meeting complex legislative requirements and high service demand from the development industry. FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA’s Administrative Fee Schedules provide cost recovery for planning, infrastructure review and permitting services. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Once approved by the Authority, staff will take the necessary actions to bring the proposed fee schedules into effect for February 1, 2018. Report prepared by: Quentin Hanchard, extension 5324 Emails: qhanchard@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Quentin Hanchard, extension 5324 Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: qhanchard@trca.on.ca, cwoodland@trca.on.ca Date: January 10, 2018 Attachments: 8 667 Measure 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Trend New Planning Applications 723 751 808 863 940 Carry Forward Applications (40%)434 451 485 518 564 New Permit Applications 1,064 1,046 1,191 1,301 1,462 Carry Forward Applications (20%)213 209 238 260 292 Permits Issued 970 930 1,004 1,180 1,225 Environmental Assessments 71 88 83 85 83 Routine Infrastructure Issued 139 149 153 287 281 Solicitor Inquiries 941 1,053 955 970 1,006 Concept Development Inquiries 162 152 165 214 211 Violations Issued 131 96 63 102 120 Permits Inspected 3,857 4,843 4,254 4,159 4,583 Active OMB/MLC Hearings 31 52 51 50 45 Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESPs) 18 15 25 20 22 Special Planning Committees/Studies 30 31 30 32 32 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS 2013-2017 Attachment 1 668 Local Municipality 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Trend Adjala-Tos.2 0 0 1 0 Ajax 16 22 28 21 9 Aurora 2 1 0 0 1 Brampton 51 71 48 53 72 Caledon 99 69 67 74 88 King 38 28 42 52 57 Markham 56 82 99 80 90 Mississauga 22 25 21 10 15 Mono 0 2 0 2 1 Niagara Esc. Com.12 11 4 11 15 Pickering 23 11 28 23 31 Richmond Hill 153 156 161 185 206 Toronto 101 126 159 163 175 Uxbridge 11 3 3 2 7 Vaughan 128 146 123 165 160 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES Peel Region 172 165 136 137 175 York Region 391 419 453 512 543 Durham Region 50 36 61 46 47 Toronto 101 126 159 163 175 Whitchurch-St.16 7 28 30 30 SUB TOTAL:723 751 808 863 942 Add Concept Development 162 152 165 214 211 Add Development Planning Permits Received 781 709 867 859 945 TOTAL:1,666 1,612 1,840 1,936 2,098 SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY 2013-2017 Attachment 2 669 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Proposed 2018-2019 Fees, Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 1 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Introduction TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Planning Services was approved by Resolution #XXXXX (as amended) of the Authority on XXXXX, 2018. The Fee Schedule adheres to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry “Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees”, TRCA’s Fees Policy/Guideline 2010, and the range of planning services consistent with TRCA’s Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities. The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of planning and technical review. This Fee Schedule provides a layered approach, in which base fees are presented in the categories in the front portion of the fee schedule, with additional fees for specialized work in the back portion. These additional fees, (e.g. additional technical review, site visits and meetings) beyond the base fees, may apply. Where possible, TRCA staff will identify as early as possible when additional fees are necessary. We recommend that applicants with more complex applications familiarize themselves with the additional fees that may apply. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review, red -line revisions (where possible), and project management assistance. Administration of Applications and Fees (General Notes) 1.All applications must be deemed complete by TRCA, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of the review process. 2.All planning application submissions and associated fees are administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA. 3.A pre-consultation meeting with the municipality and TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the planning application should be held. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If, the scope of the application changes throughout the review process, then fee adjustments will be determined. 4.General inquiries and applicability of fees will be directed through TRCA's planning Senior Managers or Associate Directors on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements. 5.Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that cannot be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Senior Director, Planning and Development and/or CEO’s office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended. 6.Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Senior Director, Planning and Development. 7.The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. The clearance fee will be paid directly to TRCA prior to a request for final clearance of an application. All payments must be made within 30 days of TRCA notification in writ ing. If application fees have not been paid at the time of submission of the application, fees will be assessed in accordance with th e fee schedule in place at the time in which payment occurs. Interest will be charged and accumulated beyond 30 days. 8.Re-submission fees must be paid prior to final clearance of an application. Only one set of fees applies when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. a combined Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Subdivision application), however, planning and permit fees are separate. For combined planning applications, the highest rate of fees applies. Separate fees apply if the applications are received more than 3 months apart. For Minor Concept Development applications (only) that are immediately followed by associated permit applications, a credit of up to $100 of the Minor Concept Development fee may be applied to the permit application, at the discretion of the TRCA Planner. 9.TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort or for development application scenarios not captured in the Fee Schedule. Custom fees will be negotiated for optional expedited review or unique circumstances for large scale or complex review efforts. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modeling which, if required, will be charged to the applicant. TRCA reserves the right to re-assess fee requirements after one year of processing planning applications. Additional fees can be charged after one year and for applications still in process for which applicant-driven delays have been experienced. 10. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees to reflect new planning or regulatory legislative requirements. 11. Base geotechnical and hydrogeology review is included. Applications will be subject to an additional fee for complex reviews and advisory services. TRCA will inform applicants as early as possible in the process. 12. Any application that is inactive for 2 years or more is considered dormant by TRCA and a new application (or top-up) for processing and fee purposes is required. Attachment 3 670 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Proposed 2018-2019 Fees, Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 2 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Administration of Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Applications The Fee Schedule sets a base fee across the jurisdiction as follows: Proposals 25ha or less: $ 7,875 Base Fee Proposals greater than 25ha: $15,750 Base Fee 1.A baseline charge of $475 per gross hectare is applied to each application. The gross area includes natural systems. 2.An additional project management fee will be added to cover meetings for committee and team coordination, as well as, general meeting sessions (Range $25,000 - $50,000). The following apply to MESP applications: 1.The Fee Schedule assumes an average 2-year timeframe for MESP completion. TRCA reserves the right to re-evaluate the MESP scope of work and progress related to fee status after a 2-year process. Additional fees will be added for extended timeframes and associated multiple reviews. Payment is due for changes in scope and timeline at the 2-year review date. Standard and Non-standard MESP/subwatershed Studies: Standard fee agreements – all new fee calculations will follow the base guidelines set herein with associated meeting coordination allowances at the study outset. Timeline schedules and Terms of Reference set with the municipalities and landowners will assist in work flow and anticipated work program completion. All studies will be re-evaluated at the 2-year milestone (or as agreed in a Terms of Reference or upfront agreement) for changes in scope, extent of coordination, and anticipated cost to complete remaining stages of work. Extended project delays may need re-evaluation on an annual basis to fairly determine project progress and adjust work program scoping with the municipality and landowner group participation. Al l evaluations will be provided in writing. Fees are required to build capacity for complex reviews and to meet service delivery needs for all. Non-Standard fee agreements – On occasion, study review requirements need to be adjusted to unique circumstances to assist the municipality and/or landowners to meet new conditions or timing considerations. These adjustments need to be incorporated into a non-standard MESP/subwatershed fee agreement to address variables in scheduling, numbers of reviews or staggered submissions, phasing, additional unanticipated technical reviews, updates and transitional files, reasonable expedited requirements. Changes to the base standard costing agreements will be negotiated on a time allowance basis upfront in a new process (when known) or at key annual evaluation milestones in active processes as noted above. 2.A Terms of Reference for the MESP (see TRCA’s MESP Guidelines) must be prepared and agreed to by all parties including the municipality, TRCA and the proponent. 3.All MESP fees are required at the initiation of the study or as negotiated through Terms of Reference and agreement. The following alternative milestone payment structure still provides the minimum base payment schedule of older MESP agreements and can be adjusted through agreement. MESP PHASE OF WORK PAYABLE a.Preliminary Initiation (at Project start-up) (Scoping of MESP/Terms of Reference Initiation)Base Fee applies b.Terms of Reference completion/MESP Initiation 50% payable (Includes existing conditions report/field work/first MESP submission/review) c.Prior to First Submission Comments 20% payable d.Prior to issuance of final MESP approval by TRCA (Maximum 3 review submissions)30% payable 4.All official plan amendment, zoning and draft plans of subdivision fee requirements that evolve out of the Secondary/ Block Plan process and MESP process apply separately as per TRCA's approved Fee Schedule at the time of submission. No additional per lot charges will apply on draft plans of subdivision if an MESP is completed, approved and paid for. 5.Plans of subdivision that have not been studied under the MESP process will be charged an additional fee of $105 per unit, over and above the subdivision base and clearance fees (see schedule). Subdivisions not included as part of original MESP/Block Plan approval will be charged on a per unit basis for updated plans. 6.Construction permits for works under TRCA's provincial regulation are charged separately at the time of detailed design and construction of draft plan components (such as stormwater management facilities, road/bridge crossings, pipe boring and drilling works, stream channel works, etc). 671 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Proposed 2018-2019 Fees, Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 3 of 11 [PL20160129] Definitions The following definitions apply to applications to determine fee review category: a) Screening Letter – projects that do not affect the program or policy interests of TRCA and for which a clearance letter is being requested. Clearance may be provided in an e-mail. Site visits, meetings and technical or policy review are not included; one submission of screening information is included. If the submission materials are updated or amended, a new fee will be applied. b) Screening Assessment – projects for which a letter is required from TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) but the proposal does not affect the program or policy interests of TRCA and technical review comments are not required. One submission is included. If the submission materials are updated or amended, a new fee will be applied. Site visits and meetings are not included. If a site visit or meeting is required, the application will be considered to be Minor, Standard or Major. c) Minor – projects for which a letter/response is required from TRCA (for properties located adjacent and not within a natural feature or natural hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of TRCA, and for which comments from TRCA may be provided. Minor projects may require technical review related to only one technical discipline. Up to one site visit or meeting with a TRCA Planner is included. Up to two submissions (initial and final) are included. Minor Subdivisions (less than 5ha) are those with ten or fewer lots, for which a technical review is not required by TRCA, however, TRCA’s participation is necessary. d) Standard – projects that meet TRCA policies, and require scoped technical analysis in up to two technical disciplines (i.e. scoped EIS review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review). Up to one meeting and one site visit with a TRCA Planner and one TRCA technical staff member is included. Up to three submissions are included (multiple submissions not applicable to Standard Concept Development). e) Major – projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of multi-disciplinary technical studies are required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program or complex policy interests can be met (e.g. ORM, Rouge Park, NEC). Major projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Major projects may require a site visit and up to two technical team or planning meetings. Up to three submissions are included. f)Complex – projects for which a full suite of applicable technical studies are required to demonstrate consistency with TRCA or partner municipality program or complex policy interests (e.g. ORM, Rouge Park, NEC). Complex projects typically involve extensive modifications to the landscape. Complex projects may also be characterized by one or more of the following: i.The need for up to three working meetings and up to three submissions; ii.The need for additional TRCA technical assessments (i.e. technical modeling refinements); iii.Extensive technical study review in one or more of the following: including complex hydrogeological, fluvial geomorphology, natural channel design, wetland interference, environmental impact studies; or, iv.Require more than one day of TRCA fieldwork. g) Additional Site Visit Charges - Unless otherwise stated, site visits are not included in the fees assessed for all screening letters and screening assessments, “Minor” applications in all categories, and Solicitor-Realtor enquiries. Should site visits be required, or be requested for applications in these categories, additional site visit fees will apply, in accordance with the site visit fees prescribed in this Fee Schedule. h) Incomplete/unconsolidated Submissions - A submission for review is deemed to be “incomplete” where TRCA has identified requirements, and the application has not met all requirements. The following scenarios are examples of situations in which an application may be deemed incomplete or unconsolidated: 1. Where all technical or supporting studies that are required to mee t TRCA’s submission requirements have not been provided with the application; 2. Where component studies are submitted in a piecemeal fashion; 3. Where the findings and analysis in component reports are not integrated in a multi-discipline submission (e.g. where an Environmental Impact Study, Functional Servicing Report, and Hydrogeological report are packaged together and each report has not considered the findings of the others). i)Applicant Driven Formal Modification - A fee for an “applicant driven formal modification” will be charged where plans are submitted for review after the application has been formally circulated by, or received planning approval from the municipality, and TRCA review is still in progress/on-going. j)File Continuation - Applicable to files that continue beyond two years from the date of submission of the application. At two years, and two year intervals thereafter, if the applications are still in the review or approval process, application fees will need to be topped- up to current fees in the applicable fee schedule at that time. This is to be completed through a re-evaluation of the status of the application and scope of the review remaining, to review the need for any additional fee requirements. k) Major and Complex Files without Prior MESP (non-subdivision) – Where Major or Complex files, (Rezoning Applications, Official Plan Amendments, Site Plans – not including subdivisions which are addressed separately) are submitted without an MESP, and an MESP has not been completed for the area within the past 10 years, may be subject to additional review fees. At the time of application, where possible, TRCA staff will identify whether additional fees are applicable. Note: Additional charges will apply for additional meetings or site visits. Additional meetings will be assessed the same fee as additional site visits, inclusive of travel and preparation time, in accordance with the site visit fees identified herein. 672 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES Proposed 2018-2019 – Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 4 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Fee Schedule for Planning Services Application Type Application Fee (2016) Application Fee Proposed 2018 Clearance Fee (2016) Proposed Clearance Fee (2018) Explanation of Proposed Change Screening letter (Residential/Minor projects) $100 $105 $0 $0 Cost of Living Increase (5%) only. Screening letter – other agencies or parties Minor $100 Major $250 Complex $1,000 Minor $105 Major $265 Complex $1,050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Vulnerable Areas Screening Fees (Source Water Protection) $90 $95 $0 $0 Source Water Protection – new services Please contact Planning and Development staff No Change No Change Solicitor/Realtor Screening Service Update Screening Letters (NEW) $325 $325 $125* n/a n/a No Change *New Category. This is for requests for update letters. Only applicable to the following: Same applicant (not just same property), within one year of the original screening letter. Concept Development/ Property Inquiry – Single Residential Structure Minor $350 Standard $790 Major $3,215 Complex $6,065 Additional technical review $1,050 Expedited real estate review $3,150 Minor $370 Standard $830 Major $3,375 Complex $6,370 Additional technical review $1,100 Expedited real estate review $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Living Increase (5%) only. 673 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES Proposed 2018-2019 – Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 5 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Application Type Application Fee (2016) Application Fee Proposed 2018 Clearance Fee (2016) Proposed Clearance Fee (2018) Explanation of Proposed Change Concept Development/ Property Inquiry – Residential Multi- dwelling, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Minor $750 Standard $2,625 Major $5,775 Complex Application specific fee Minor $830 Standard $3,375 Major $6,370 Complex Application specific fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Living Increase (5%) only. Variance - residential Minor $550 Minor $580 Standard $830 Major $1400 See notes See notes Standard/Major added. Standard includes a site visit. Major for more complex applications. Variance - Industrial/Commercial/ Subdivision/Institutional Minor $1,050 Major $1,765 Minor $1,100 Standard $1,860 Consent/Severance/Land Division (per lot) Screening assessment $550 Minor $1,325 Major $5,345 Screening assessment $550 Minor $1,400 Major $3,375 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remove screening assessment –these, where required can go through concept development. Reduce Major fee – now consistent with other fee categories. Cost of Living applied to Standard. Single Residential Site Plan Minor (outside of hazard) $790 Standard $1,250 Major $3,215 Complex $5,775 Minor (outside of hazard) $830 Standard $1,315 Major $2,300* Complex $3,300* $0 $250 $700 $1,675 $0 $265 $735 $1,775 Cost of Living only for Standard, Major and Complex reduced. *Base fee. Subject to additional fees for technical review, project management or processing, to be determined on an application specific basis. Site Plan Minor $2,050 Standard $6,050 Major $20,000 Complex $29,050 Minor $2,950 Standard $8,950 Major $14,950 Complex $24,500 $1,050 $1,675 $4,150 $4,150 $1,100 $1,775 $4,375 $4,375 Cost of living. Minor and standard site plan fees modified, commensurate with service. Major and Complex fees reduced. 674 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES Proposed 2018-2019 – Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 6 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Application Type Application Fee Application Fee – Proposed 2018 Clearance Fee Clearance Fee – Proposed 2018 Explanation of Proposed Change Multi-Unit Building Site Plan (Rental, Condominium, Mixed Use) Standard $16,700 Major $43,000 Complex $50,000 Minor (NEW) $17,550 Standard $24,950 Major $37,500 Complex $52,500 $5,750 $15,800 $15,800 $6050 $16,600 $16,600 New Minor category added. Major fee reduced. Minor will only apply to applications meeting criteria identified in this fee schedule. Official Plan Amendment (OPA) Screening assessment $490 Minor $2,200 Standard $8,200 Major $12,000 Complex $20,000 Screening assessment $830 Minor $2,950 Standard $8,950 Major $12,600 Complex $21,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Change Screening assessment reconciled to match concept development, as it is a similar service. Minor and Standard modified to better reflect services. Zoning By-law Amendment/ Rezoning (ZBA/RZ) Screening assessment $490 Minor $2,200 Standard $8,200 Major $12,000 Complex $20,000 Screening assessment $830 Minor $2,950 Standard $8,950 Major $12,600 Complex $21,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Change Screening assessment reconciled to match concept development, as it is a similar service. Minor and Standard modified to better reflect services. Condominium Agreement Clearance – Admin/Registration $5,250 $5,800 Cost of Living only. 675 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES Proposed 2018-2019 – Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 7 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Application Type Application Fee Application Fee – Proposed 2018 Clearance Fee Clearance Fee – Proposed 2018 Explanation of Proposed Change Multi-Unit Building Site Plan (Rental, Condominium, Mixed Use) Standard $16,700 Major $43,000 Complex $50,000 Minor (NEW) $17,550 Standard $24,950 Major $37,500 Complex $52,500 $5,750 $15,800 $15,800 $6050 $16,600 $16,600 New Minor category added. Major fee reduced. Minor will only apply to applications meeting criteria identified in this fee schedule. Draft Plan of Subdivision (Residential/Industrial/ Commercial Subdivision) less than 5ha Minor $6,000 Standard $20,000 Major $35,000 Complex $48,000 5ha to 10ha Standard $28,655 Major $48,250 Complex $56,500 10ha to 25ha Standard $38,600 Major $49,800 Complex $56,500 25ha and greater Standard $48,250 Major $54,990 Complex $59,900 Per unit (if applicable) $105/unit Per ha (if applicable) $475/ha less than 5ha Minor $6,300 Standard $21,000 Major $36,750 Complex $50,400 5ha to 10ha Standard $30,100 Major $50,675 Complex $59,325 10ha to 25ha Standard $40,550 Major $52,300 Complex $59,325 25ha and greater Standard $51,750 Major $57.750 Complex $62,900 Per unit (if applicable) $105/unit Per ha (if applicable) $475/ha $2,625 $5,735 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $2,775 $6,025 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 $16,600 Cost of Living change only. No change to per unit or per hectare. Minor will only apply to applications meeting criteria identifies in this fee schedule. Clearance fee for Additional Subdivision Phases Standard – within one year $2,760 Standard $5,250 With new technical information Initial clearance fee Standard – within one year $2,900 Standard $5,515 With new technical information Initial clearance fee Cost of Living change only. 676 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES Proposed 2018-2019 – Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 8 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Application Type Application Fee Application Fee – Proposed 2018 Clearance Fee Clearance Fee – Proposed 2018 Explanation of Proposed Change Multi-Unit Building Site Plan (Rental, Condominium, Mixed Use) Standard $16,700 Major $43,000 Complex $50,000 Minor (NEW) $17,550 Standard $24,950 Major $37,500 Complex $52,500 $5,750 $15,800 $15,800 $6050 $16,600 $16,600 New Minor category added. Major fee reduced. Minor will only apply to applications meeting criteria identified in this fee schedule. Golf Courses, Aggregate Pits or Large-scale Fill Operations $22,050 (base fee) $42,000 (base fee) $23,200 (base fee) $44,100 (base fee) $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Living change only. Block and Tertiary Plans and Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP)(Residential & Industrial/Commercial) Base fee 25ha or less $7,875 Base fee > 25ha $15,750 Comprehensive $475/ha & Project Management Fee $25,000-$50,000 Base fee 25ha or less $7,875 Base fee > 25ha $15,750 Comprehensive $475/ha & Project Management Fee $25,000-$50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 No Change. Urban MESP & subwatershed study Negotiated in a Terms of Reference Agreement. Negotiated in a Terms of Reference Agreement. No change Optional Expedited Review per review Optional Expedited Review for MESP subwatershed or major file Optional Expedited Clearance (2 weeks) Optional Expedited Clearance (1 week) . $5,000-$20,000 Negotiated based upon scope of work and availability. Additional 75% premium of applicable fee. Additional 150% premium of applicable fee. $5,000-$20,000 Negotiated based upon scope of work and availability. Additional 75% premium of applicable fee. Additional 150% premium of applicable fee. No Change. 677 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES Proposed 2018-2019 – Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 9 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Other Applicable Fees Description Fee Proposed 2018 Fee Explanation of Proposed Change Pre-consultation – meeting (Planner only) no charge no charge No Change Pre-consultation technical team site visit $2,870 $2,870 No Change Pre-consultation Technical Team Meeting Up to ½ day (including travel time) Up to 1 day (including travel time) $1,550 $2,870 $1,550 $2,870 No Change Additional Site Visit Charges: *Scoped staff *Scoped staff Team staff up to ½ day $775 up to 1 day $1,550 per day $2,870 up to ½ day $775 up to 1 day $1,550 per day $2,870 No Change Incomplete submission/ unconsolidated submission coordination – per submission. Minor $1,000 All Others $5,000 - $10,000 Minor $1,000 All Others $5,000 - $10,000 No Change Applicant Driven Formal Modification (requiring re-circulation) Minor $1,500 Major $5,000 Minor $1,500 Major $5,000 No Change Additional Submissions – each submission beyond the third submission Minor $1,000 All Others $2,500 - $10,000 Minor $1,000 All Others $2,500 - $10,000 No Change All applications located in a Special Policy Area (will be charged an additional percentage of premium on the applicable fee) Minor 50% Major 100% Minor 50% Major 100% No Change 678 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES Proposed 2018-2019 – Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 10 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Description Fee Proposed 2018 Fee Explanation of Proposed Change File Continuation (All Files) Top-up to current cost in fee schedule Top-up to current cost in fee schedule No Change File Reactivation Standard files $550 Large files/OMB $1,050 Standard files $580 Large files/OMB $1100 Cost of Living change only. Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review $1,655 - $2,765 $1,750 - $3,000 Cost of Living change only. 679 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES Proposed 2018-2019 – Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 11 of 11 [PL2016012 9] Description Fee Proposed 2018 Fee Explanation of Proposed Change GIS Fee - $50/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $50/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD) No Change Engineering Data Request - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet - $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files) - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet - $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files) No Change Optional Terms of Reference Review (EIS, Provincial Plan conformity, Master Plan – not related to an MESP) technical advisory Minor $250 Major $500- $1,000 Minor $250 Major $500- $1,000 No change Archaeological screening (on TRCA- owned lands only) $525+ HST $560+ HST Cost of Living change only. Collaborative meetings and technical review related to settlement, when applicable $5,000 - $20,000 $5,000 - $20,000 No Change TRCA Project Management Fee (to assist with coordinating TRCA’s reviews and project timelines associated with TRCA reviews) $5,000- $20,000 $5,000- $20,000 No Change Additional Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Review Standard: $2,100 Major: $3,150 - $4,725 Standard: $2,220 Major: $3,300 - $4,975 Cost of Living change only. Single Residential Scoped Site Plan (ORM Advice only) Minor/Standard* $370 New Fee Category *Base fee - Subject to additional fees for technical review or site visit, to be determined on an application specific basis. 680 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Proposed Updates 2018-2019, Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 1 of 7 [PM201601 29] Introduction TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Permitting Services for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) was adopted by Resolution #XXXXX (as amended) of the Authority on XXXXX, 2018. The Fee Schedule adheres to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry “Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees”, the TRCA’s Fees Policy/Guideline 2010. The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications with modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of regulatory and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red-line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee. Administration of Applications and Fees (General Notes): 1.All applications must be deemed complete by TRCA, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing. 2.All permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA. 3.Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the permit application is mandatory. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the application processing, the scope of the application changes, fee adjustments will be determined. 4.General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's Planning Senior Managers or Associate Directors on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements. 5.Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that cannot be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Senior Director, Planning and Development and/or CEO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format is recommended for an appeal. 6.Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Senior Director, Planning and Development. 7.The permit fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to TRCA. In the event that the permit fee is not paid at the time of filing an application, the current fee as of the time of issuance of the permit must be paid prior to issuing a permit. 8.TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort. Additional fees may also need to be charged to the applicant for peer reviews that may be required for shoreline works, geotechnical, and specialized modelling. 9.All permits are issued for two years. Requests for initial permit issuance (only) beyond the standard two-year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval. 10.On a one-time basis, applicants may apply for a permit extension provided such requests are made 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit. In the Application for Permit Re-issuance, applicants shall set out the reasons for which an extension is required. Requests for a permit extension/re-issuance beyond the standard two-year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for ea ch additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval. 11.TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees related to regulatory legislation changes or updates. 12.Expedited Review Additional Charge applies only to unanticipated circumstances requiring fast-tracked approvals (primarily clearance), and can only be approved by the Senior Director as staffing capability allows. 13.TRCA staff will process permit applications in accordance with Board approved policies and procedures, as per Authority Resolutions A/198/13, A199/13 and A103/15, (i.e. Major, Standard Delegated, Minor Works, Routine Infrastructure Works). Permit fees are determined by TRCA as set out in this schedule based upon the scale and scope of the component of the project, independent of the administrative review process. Attachment 4 681 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES Proposed Updates 2018-2019, Final Draft for Authority Consideration Page 2 of 7 [PM201601 29] Definitions a)Minor Ancillary (outside of hazard) – applies to (NON HABITABLE) projects that are partially or wholly within TRCA’s Regulated area, but are entirely outside of all hazards (erosion, slope stability, floodplain). Review of technical studies, site visits and meetings are not included. If technical reports, a site visit or meeting is required, the application will be considered to be Minor, Standard or Major. Completion of a Concept Development application prior to submitting for a Minor Ancillary Permit is recommended. Works on Minor Residential Property (ADD) b)Minor Ancillary Residential - only applies to minor ancillary structures (NON HABITABLE) and landscaping and only for applications that are outside of all hazards, valley and stream corridors and are setback a minimum of six metres from all hazards, and for which a technical review is not required. Does not include a site visit. Completion of a Concept Development application prior to submitting for a Minor Permit is recommended. c)Minor – projects for which a letter/response is required from TRCA (e.g. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area), which may affect the program or policy interests of TRCA, and may require a site visit from a TRCA planner (only) or up to one meeting involving a TRCA planner without TRCA technical staff. Projects include ancillary structures such as decks, sheds, garages, and pools and placement of less than 30 cubic metres of fill. A maximum of one submission is included, after which, additional fees will apply. Completion of a Concept Development application prior to submitting for a Minor Permit is recommended. d)Standard – projects that meet TRCA policies, and require scoped technical review related to one technical discipline (e.g. review of letter report). Projects include additions, minor additions or ancillary works in the floodplain, structures or buildings that are not within or directly adjacent to flooding or erosion hazards, and placement of fill (over 30 cubic metres) and associated grading/fill placement. May include one meeting or site visit with up to two staff members. A maximum of two submissions are included, after which, additional fees will apply. Completion of a Concept Development application prior to submitting for a Standard Minor Permit is recommended. e)Major– projects that meet TRCA policies, and require technical analysis is required in up to two technical disciplines (e.g. standard Environmental Impact Statement review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review). Projects include additions, new structures or buildings; works in the floodplain and placement of fill (over 30 cubic metres) and associated grading/fill placement, and may include up to one site visit and one meeting. A maximum of two submissions are included, after which, additional fees will apply. f)Complex– projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of several applicable technical studies is required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program and policy interests can be met. Complex projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydro- geological, or fluvial geomorphology studies and assessment. Complex projects may require up to three technical team or planning meetings, and two or less site visits. Projects include major additions (greater than 50% of the original ground floor area), new structures or buildings; works in the floodplain; and the placement of 30 cubic metres of fill or more. A maximum of three submissions are included, after which, additional fees will apply. Note: Additional charges will apply for additional meetings or site visits. 682 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) Proposed Fees 2018-2019 V.3 Page 3 of 7 [PM201601 29] Fee Schedule for Ontario Regulation 166/06 Applications Application Type Application Fee Proposed Fee 2018 Notes Works on Private Residential Property Minor Ancillary Residential $200 Minor $440 Standard $820 Major $1,850 Complex $5,250 $210 $470 $875 $2,000* $3,000* Cost of Living only. Complex reduced. *Base fee. For Major and Complex projects, additional technical review, project management and processing fees specific to the application will be assessed. Municipal Environment Assessment (EA) Projects See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services No Change Municipal Development Projects (NOT EA related) $5,500 $5775 Cost of Living only Utilities: • Single residential • Development project-based See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services. See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services. No Change 683 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) Proposed Fees 2018-2019 V.3 Page 4 of 7 [PM201601 29] Application Type Application Fee Proposed Fee 2018 Notes Projects on Subdivision Lands, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties, Recreation and Other Projects (per component). Ancillary Structures: •Minor Ancillary – Single Structure Only •Minor Ancillary – Other (per component, Ancillary structures, Resurfacing, Individual Site Landscaping) Minor Projects: • Small-scale topsoil stripping/ individual property temporary stormwater management • Minor outfalls • Minor Improvements (trails, minor recreational facilities, etc.) Standard Projects: •Standard topsoil stripping/temporary stormwater management • SWM Ponds and associated outfalls • Standard Road Crossings • Major Grading/Earth Works • Minor In-stream Remediation Works • Alterations/Restoration of Wetlands Major Projects: • Major Outfalls •Major Road Crossings • Natural Channel Modifications •Major filling (Subdivision, Commercial, Employment, Institutional, others) Complex Projects: •Relocation of Stream Corridor/New Channel Design • Complex Fill Project $820 $2,000 per project $5,500 per project $8,950 per project $18,600 $18,600 $18,600 $20,700 $20,700 $25,000 - $75,000 $860 $2,100 per project $6,500 per project $9,950 per project $19,550 $19,550 $19,550 $21,750 $21,750 $25,000 - $75,000 Cost of Living Changes to Minor and Standard to better reflect cost of service. No Change to Major, Complex or Ancillary other than Cost of Living. 684 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) Proposed Fees 2018-2019 V.3 Page 5 of 7 [PM201601 29] Application Type Application Fee Proposed Fee 2018 Notes Permit Revisions – percentage of current fee Individual Residential 50% Others Minor revisions 25% Major revisions 50% Revision with Re-Issuance 75% Individual Residential 50% Others Minor revisions 25% Major revisions 50% Revision with Re-Issuance 75% No Change Permit Re-Issuance (Extension) 50% of current fee 50% of current fee No Change Major or Complex Permit Application with Letter of Undertaking $1,000 in addition to all other permit fees. $1,000 in addition to all other permit fees. No Change Major or Complex Projects – Additional Technical Review (NEW) $1,000 in addition to all other permit fees. NEW. Other Applicable Fees Application Type Application Fee Proposed Fees 2018-2019 Notes All applications located in a Special Policy Area (SPA) will be charged an additional percentage of current fee Minor (Ancillary Structures) 25% Standard 50% Major/Complex 100% Minor (Ancillary Structures) 25% Standard 50% Major/Complex 100% No Change Additional Site Visit Charges: Planner Only (minor only) *Scoped staff – up to 2 *Scoped staff – up to 2 team staff Up to 3 hours $350 up to ½ day $775 up to 1 day $1,550 $2,870 Up to 3 hours $350 up to ½ day $775 up to 1 day $1,550 $2,870 No Change 685 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) Proposed Fees 2018-2019 V.3 Page 6 of 7 [PM201601 29] Application Type Application Fee Proposed Fees 2018-2019 Notes GIS Fee - $50/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $50/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD) No Change Engineering Data Request - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet - $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files) - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet - $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files) No Change Fish Timing Window Extension $6,065 $6,065 No Change Emergency Works 100% premium, in addition to applicable permit fee. 100% premium, in addition to applicable permit fee. No Change Red Line Revisions by TRCA minor $775 major $1,655 minor $775 major $1,655 No Change Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review. $1,655 - $2,760 $1,655 - $2,760 No Change Optional Expedited Review additional charge (Senior Director approved) – Percentage of current fee. Additional 100% of current fee Additional 100% of current fee No Change Optional Expedited Permit Issuance/ Re-issuance (Senior Director Approved) Additional 50% of current fee Additional 50% of current fee No Change Additional Meetings 25% of current fee 25% of current fee No Change 686 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) Proposed Fees 2018-2019 V.3 Page 7 of 7 [PM201601 29] Application Type Application Fee Proposed Fees 2018-2019 Notes Repeat Submissions – Percentage of current fee for each additional submission 50% of current fee Minor Ancillary-100% of current fee 50% of current fee Minor Ancillary-100% of current fee No Change Project Management Assistance (voluntary as required) To be negotiated To be negotiated No Change Compliance Monitoring: Permit Non-compliance Compliance Reports-Clearance Letter Negotiated Restoration Agreement $2,425 $225 To be determined $2,425 $225 To be determined No Change Voluntary compliance related to resolution of violation (only where supported by TRCA staff) 200% of related fee 200% of related fee No Change Archaeological screening (on TRCA- owned or TRCA-managed lands only) $525+ HST $550+ HST Cost of Living only. Additional Geotechnical and Hydrogeology Review Standard: $2,100 Major: $3,150 - $4,725 Fee from Planning Fee Schedule – not previously in Permit Fee Schedule. Only applied when applicable. Screening letter/Clearance (Residential/Minor projects) 0$105 Fee from Planning Fee Schedule – not previously in Permit Fee Schedule. Optional Service. 687 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 Note: All reference numbers need to be double-checked once edits are confirmed Introduction TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services was adopted by Resolution #A259/15 of the Authority Board on January 26, 2018. The Fee Schedule was developed in consultation with municipalities through an assessment of service delivery which adheres to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry “Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees”, TRCA’s Fees Policy/Guideline 2010, and the range of Environmental Assessment (EA) or Infrastructure Review services consistent with TRCA’s Service Delivery Agreements and/or Memoranda of Understanding with area municipalities or agencies. The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale review efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of EA and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval for the applicant, such as expedited review and red line revisions (where possible). General Notes 1.All applications must be deemed complete by TRCA, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing, unless otherwise approved by TRCA's EA Associate Director or the Senior Director. 2.All EA and permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA. 3.Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the EA or permit application is recommended for standard or complex applications. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If the scope of the application changes through the review process, the scope of the application changes, fee adjustments will be determined. 4.General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's EA Associate Director or the Senior Director on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements. 5.Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that cannot be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications (Senior Director) and/or CEO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended. 6.Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the EA Associate Director or the Senior Director. 7.The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to TRCA. Applications will not be processed until fees are received unless approved by TRCA's EA Associate Director or the Senior Director. 8.Added from Development Planning Schedule - TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort or for development application scenarios not captured in the Fee Schedule. Custom fees will be negotiated for optional expedited review or unique circumstances for large scale or complex review efforts. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modeling and may be charged to the applicant. TRCA reserves the right to re-assess fee requirements after one year of processing planning applications. Additional fees can be charged after one year and for excessive delays. 9.Added for Clarity - Expedited Review Additional Charge applies only to unanticipated circumstances requiring fast-tracked approvals (primarily clearance), and can only be approved by the EA Associate Director or the Senior Director as staffing capability allows. 10.Revised for Clarity - All permits are issued for two years. Requests for initial issuance (only) beyond the standard two year time period,(up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval. On a one-time basis, applicants may apply for a permit reissuance/extension provided such requests are made 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit. In the Application for Permit Reissuance, applicants shall set out the reasons for which an extension is required. Requests for a permit extension/reissuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to a total of 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each Attachment 5 688 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval. 11. REWORDED FOR CLARITY In instances where there are combined applications, e.g. such as site plan review and an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application: a. If the applications require two separate reviews (i.e., the information submitted is different) and two separate approvals then both fees are applied in accordance with the respective fee schedules. b. If the applications require only one review (i.e., the information submitted is the same for both applications, and within a one year time frame), the applications are processed and reviewed together and only the highest fee rate applies in accordance with the respective fee schedules. c. If only one review is required as per (b) above, but a separate clearance letter is required for one of the applications, the additional clearance fee is also applied in accordance with the respective fee schedules. d. ADDED FOR CLARITY In the cases where a revision to the permit is requested at the time of permit re-issuance, only the permit re-issuance fee shall apply. 12. TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort (e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modeling and may be charged to the applicant. 13. All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit, if needed, up to ½ day for minor or standard files and up to 1 day for major or complex files. 14. Specific Service Delivery Agreements take precedence over the fee schedule. 15. For Class Environmental Assessments, the schedules or categories specific to the respective class EA document or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards or commissions, such as oil or gas pipelines, or electricity generation, will be applied. 16. Planning Act application rates can be found in the TRCA Planning Services Fee Schedule. 17. Routine Infrastructure Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure. 18. Emergency Infrastructure Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure. 19. Reworded for clarity – Crown Agencies, either federal or provincial, are not bound by the Conservation Authorities Act. Notwithstanding, the TRCA Vountary Project Review process may be applied as per the Proponents and Projects Exempt for the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process described below, and review fees will be charged. It should be noted that other legislation and approvals may apply to these projects and it is the responsibility of the proponent to obtain such approvals. 20. Delete – reworded above - Development activities within regulated areas, and interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses that are conducted by proponents identified through legislation as being exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, do not require permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06. This includes provincial or federal agencies as identified under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Notwithstanding, the TRCA Voluntary Project Review process may be applied as per #6 of the Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process below, and review fees will be charged. It should be noted that other legislation and approvals may apply to these projects and it is the responsibility of the proponent to obtain such approvals. 21. Delete included above Development activities within regulated areas that are conducted by proponents identified through legislation as being exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, do not require permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06. Notwithstanding, the TRCA Voluntary Project Review process may apply as per #6 of the Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process below, and review fees will be charged. It should be noted that other legislation and approvals may apply to these projects and it is the responsibility of the proponent to obtain such approvals. 22. Unless noted above (#18 or 19) development activities within regulated areas, watercourse or wetlands on lands through which an easement, or other form of permission, has been obtained from a crown agency, are not exempt from the regulatory approval process of the Conservation Authorities Act. This includes, but is not limited to private, municipal, gas, oil, electricity or utility projects. 23. Minor project review means that no or limited technical Natural Heritage Impact Studies and engineering review reports are required as part of the submission, together with detailed design drawings if appropriate; standard project review means that scoped technical studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as hydrology, ecological, stormwater), together with detailed design drawings if appropriate. Major and complex project review means that comprehensive technical studies 689 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 or reports are required as part of the submission (such as meander belt, hydrogeology, geotechnical, environmental impact studies) together with detailed design drawings if appropriate. 24. TRCA has extensive environmental and cultural data that is available for use by the proponent, subject to the waiver of a legal disclaimer and the provision of user fees. Where there are data sharing agreements in place, municipalities are exempt from these fees and the data will be provided free of charge. All others are expected to purchase data as per the fee schedule. Current data sharing agreements are in place with all municipalities in the TRCA jurisdiction, as well as the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and various service agreement partners. 25. Inserted from Development Planning schedule - TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees regulatory legislation changes or updates. Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process 1. In accordance with the Crown Agency Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 48, s.1, and the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 27, the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act: Metrolinx GO Transit Hydro One* Ministry of Transportation Ontario Realty Corporation (Infrastructure Ontario) Ontario Power Generation – added for clarity Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Greater Toronto Airports Authority Parc Downsview Park Toronto Port Authority - added for clarity Parks Canada - added for clarity * A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been negotiated with Hydro One and Conservation Ontario and applies to all conservation authorities, including TRCA. The MOU prescribes the communication process to be followed between Hydro One and conservation authorities, as well as best management practices that may be implemented by Hydro One when carrying out construction or maintenance operations. Consultation with conservation authorities is required prior to all planned and emergency activities. It is acknowledged that conservation authorities may charge review fees. Permission to enter is required for works on conservation authority-owned lands, including access. Added for clarity - Note that the MOU may be subject to review and update or change.. TRCA should be consulted on an application by application basis. 2. Added for clarity - If the applicant is a Crown Corporation, fees apply for the review of applications made under the OEB process. 3. Added for clarity - Distribution companies regulated by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) owned by private corporations, municipalities, utilities, etc. are subject to Ontario Regulation 166/06 and all relevant review fees. 4. In accordance with the Canadian Transportation Act*, railways are exempt from the regulatory approval process under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act for works essential to railway operations: Canadian National Railway Canadian Pacific Railway * Under the provisions of the Canadian Transportation Act, CN and CP railway companies are exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act for all works that are essential to railway operations. These works include, but are not limited to, watercourse alterations and diversions, culvert and bridge modifications, and the construction of tunnels, embankments, bridges and roads. However, the railway is to do as little damage as possible and is to restore watercourses as near as possible to their former condition. 5. Added for clarity - If development on crown lands is not being undertaken for crown purposes, the proponent or contractor is required to obtain a permit in accordance to Ontario Regulation 166/06. 6. In accordance with CPC-2-0-03 — Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, antenna systems and towers (e.g., Rogers, Bell and TELUS), are exempt from Environmental Assessment Act, Planning Act, and Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act processes and requirements and are the direct responsibility of Industry Canada. Notwithstanding, there are provisions for stakeholder consultation that generally apply to all new towers greater than 15 metres in height. Proponents of these facilities will often use the site plan process under the Planning Act to facilitate such 690 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 communication. 7. Environmental Assessment Act Requirements: If projects are subject to a federal or provincial environmental assessment, review fees will be charged. 8. Planning Act Requirements: If proponents are subject to review under the Planning Act, or seek approval under the Planning Act on a voluntary basis, review fees will be charged. 9. Detailed Design Requirements: TRCA Permits: These proponents are exempt from the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required), TRCA Voluntary Project Review: Proponents may seek TRCA review on a voluntary basis. In such cases, TRCA will charge review fees to compensate for its time. Delete - is redundant In cases where the proponent requires TRCA Voluntary Project Review for a particular project, TRCA will charge the proponent review fees to compensate for staff time. Delete as we no longer perform this function- Fisheries Act Approvals: Proponents are responsible for obtaining appropriate approvals independent of TRCA under the Fisheries Act Self-Assessment process. A proponent can voluntarily seek confirmation from TRCA as to whether the proposal project includes the appropriate measures to avoid causing harm to fish and fish habitat as per the requirements of the DFO Self-Assessment process. Federal and Provincial Endangered Species Act Approvals: Proponents are responsible for obtaining appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. National and Ontario Energy Board Applications 1. National and Ontario Energy Board Applications are a matter of exclusive federal or provincial jurisdiction, respectively, with the board itself being responsible for all decisions. Through these processes, proponents are required to consult community stakeholders, including conservation authorities. TRCA can choose to comment on these applications through the commenting process established by the NEB or OEB. While there are no provisions that would allow TRCA to charge review fees for participation in a NEB or OEB process, if conditions for NEB or OEB approval specifically require TRCA involvement, appropriate fees will be negotiated on a project-specific basis. 2. On a case by case basis, an NEB or OEB application may also be subject to the federal or provincial Environmental Assessment Act. In these cases, the appropriate review fee will be charged. 3. These projects are not exempt from provisions under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and as such, proponents are not exempt from review fees or the TRCA regulatory approval process, (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are required). 4. These proponents may or may not be exempt from approvals under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and are responsible for obtaining the appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. Delete - we no longer perform this function - A proponent can voluntarily seek confirmation from TRCA as to whether the project proposal includes the appropriate measures to avoid causing harm to fish and fish habitat as per the requirements of the DFO Self-Assessment process. Definitions The following definitions apply to applications made in accordance with the Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services fee schedule: a) Clearance Letter – projects that do not affect the program or policy interests of TRCA and for which a clearance letter is being requested for the review of standalone plans, or technical reports and studies, often at the request of the proponent or other approval agencies or municipalities. Site visits, meetings and technical or policy review are not included; one submission of screening information is included. If the submission materials are updated or amended, a new fee will be applied. b) Screening Assessment – projects for which a letter is required from TRCA, but the proposal does not affect the program or policy interests of TRCA and technical review comments are not required. One submission is included. If the submission materials are updated or amended, a new fee will be applied. Site visits and meetings are not included. If a site visit or meeting is required, additional site visit or meeting fees will be applied. 691 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 Minor – projects that require scoped technical review with a TRCA Planner and up to one TRCA technical staff member. Meetings, submission and site visit details are noted below, after which additional fees will apply. Additional fees will also apply for incomplete/unconsolidated submissions. • Master Plans and Environmental Assessments - planner/technical reviewer to attend up to one technical advisory meeting (if applicable), one meeting with proponent and consultant, and one site visit. • Voluntary Project Review, Detailed Design and Permits (includes up to one meeting and one site visit): • IEA, Schedule B/C or Equivalent - Up to three submissions (initial, response and final) are included. • Schedule A/A+, Routine Infrastructure Works or Equivalent, and Environmental Management Plans - Up to two submissions (initial and final) are included. c) Standard – projects that require scoped technical review with a TRCA Planner and two TRCA technical staff members. Meetings, submission and site visit details are noted below, after which additional fees will apply. Additional fees will also apply for incomplete/unconsolidated submissions. • Master Plans and Environmental Assessments - planner/technical reviewer to attend up to three technical advisory meetings (if applicable), three meetings , and one site visit is included. • Voluntary Project Review, Detailed Design and Permits (includes up to one meeting and one site visit): • IEA, Schedule B/C or Equivalent, and Environmental Management Plans - Up to three submissions (initial, response and final) are included. • Schedule A/A+, Routine Infrastructure Works or Equivalent - Up to two submissions (initial and final) are included. d) Major – projects that require multi-disciplinary technical review with a TRCA Planner and three TRCA technical staff members. Meetings, submission and site visit details are noted below, after which additional fees will apply. Additional fees will also apply for incomplete/unconsolidated submissions. • Master Plans and Environmental Assessments - planner/technical reviewer to attend up to three technical advisory meeting (if applicable), three meetings, and one site visit is included. • Voluntary Project Review, Detailed Design and Permits (includes up to two meetings and one site visit): • IEA, Schedule B/C or Equivalent, and Environmental Management Plans - Up to three submissions (initial, response and final) are included. • Schedule A/A+, Routine Infrastructure Works or Equivalent - Up to two submissions (initial and final) are included. e) Complex – projects that require multi-disciplinary technical review with a TRCA Planner and four TRCA technical staff members. Meetings, submission and site visit details are noted below, after which additional fees will apply. Additional fees will also apply for incomplete/unconsolidated submissions. • Master Plans and Environmental Assessments - planner/technical reviewer to attend up to three technical advisory meeting (if applicable), three meetings, and one site visit is included. • Voluntary Project Review, Detailed Design and Permits (includes up to two meetings and one site visit): • IEA, Schedule B/C or Equivalent, and Environmental Management Plans - Up to three submissions (initial, response and final) are included. • Schedule A/A+, Routine Infrastructure Works or Equivalent - Up to two submissions (initial and final) are included. f) Additional Meeting and Site Visit Charges – Additional charges for meeting as and site visits are applied in accordance with the additional meetings and site visit fees prescribed in this Fee Schedule Note: Additional charges will apply for additional meetings or site visits. Additional meetings will be assessed the same fee as additional site visits, inclusive of travel and preparation time, in accordance with the site visit fees identified herein. TRCA encourages remote meeting using digital technologies, including conference calls and “GO TO” * or equivalent meetings. If travel time is not required, the meeting charges are reduced. g) Incomplete/unconsolidated Submissions - A submission for review is deemed to be “incomplete” where TRCA has identified requirements, and the application has not met all requirements identified by TRCA. The following scenarios are examples of situations in which an application may be deemed incomplete or unconsolidated: 1. where all technical or supporting studies that are required to meet TRCA’s submission requirements have not been provided with the application; 2. where component studies are submitted in a piecemeal fashion; 3. where the findings and analysis in component reports are not integrated in a multi- discipline submission (e.g., where an Environmental Impact Study and Hydrogeological report are packaged together and each report has not considered the findings of the others). h) File Continuation - Applicable to files that continue beyond two years from the date of submission of the 692 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 application. At two years, and at two year intervals thereafter, if the applications are still in the review or approval process, application fees will need to be topped-up to current fees in the applicable fee schedule at that time. This Review of the need for any additional fee requirements is to be completed through a re- evaluation of the status of the application and scope of the review remaining, to review the need for any additional fee requirements. Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment Act* Review (*or similar legislation as appropriate) Application Type 2016-7 Application Fee Recommended 2018 – 5% increase Notes Master Plan Minor $12,130 Standard $21,500 Major $26,150 Complex $30,020 $ 12,735.00 $ 22,575.00 $ 27,460.00 $ 31,520.00 Subject to negotiation Individual EA $30,020 $ 31,520.00 Subject to negotiation Class EA – Schedule/ Category C or equivalent Minor $9,105 Standard $12,680 Major $20,340 Complex $22,970 $ 9,560.00 $ 13,315.00 $ 21,355.00 $ 24,120.00 Class EA – Schedule/ Category B or equivalent Minor $5,790 Standard $9,810 Major $12,195 Complex $13,745 $ 6,080.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 12,805.00 $ 14,430.00 EA Addendum Reports Minor $2,205 Standard $3,195 Major/Complex $5,760 $ 2,315.00 $ 3,355.00 $ 6,050.00 Additional Site Visit Charges Minor $1,405 Standard $2,605 Major/Complex $4,125 $ 1,475.00 $ 2,735.00 $ 4,330.00 The first site visit is included as part of the application review fee Additional Meeting Charges Note: remote meetings using digital technologies are encouraged wherever feasible. In such instances, the “In TRCA Offices” rate will be charged. In TRCA Offices: Minor/Standard $990 Major/Complex $1,565 In Client/Consultant/Municipal Offices: Minor/Standard $1,405 Major/Complex $2,225 $ 1,040.00 $ 1,645.00 $ 1,475.00 $ 2,335.00 Standard meetings are included in EA standard service delivery. Additional meetings may be required at the proponent’s request. Scheduled meeting are planned for 1.5 hours; fees include additional time to organize and review minutes. For shorter meetings or meetings not requiring meeting minutes, fees may be reduced as approved by the Associate Director or Senior Director. Added for clarity from Development Planning schedule - Expedited Review Additional 100% premium of applicable fee per submission Expedited review of submission within 2 weeks is subject to availability of staff, and approval of EA Associate Director or Senior Director, as workload allows. 693 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 Added for clarity - Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review. Peer review of coastal reports prepared for shoreline projects Additional charges will be determined on a case by case basis. EA Property Screening or Inquiry $295 $ 310.00 To be deducted from the application fee if additional review is required. GIS Fee - $80/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD) - $50/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD) Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and service agreement partners are exempt Engineering Data Request - $130+ HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD) - $105 + HST for HEC-RAS - modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet - $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files) Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and service agreement partners are exempt File Continuation (All Files) Top-up to current cost in fee schedule Applicable to files that continue beyond two years from the date of submission of the application. See Definition (i) on page 4. , Fee Schedule for Permit Review Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application Application Type 2016-7 Application Fee Recommended 2018 – 5% increase Notes Individual or Municipal Class EA or Schedule B & C or equivalent Service Agreement $3,195 Minor $4,410 Standard $8,820 Major $16,060 Complex * $17,240 $ 3,355.00 $ 4,630.00 $ 9,260.00 $ 16,865.00 $ 18,100.00 Minor - EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final) Standard/Major/Complex - EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions (including final) *A site specific discussion related to size and complexity of the application will be conducted. Municipal Class EA – Schedule A/A+ or equivalent. Service Agreement $1,325 Minor $3,475 Standard $4,190 Major $6,750 $ 1,390.00 $ 3,580.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 6,965.00 EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final) 694 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 Routine Infrastructure Works Service Agreement $390 Minor $1,750 Major $2,500 $ 410.00 $ 1,805.00 $ 2,585.00 EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final) Emergency Infrastructure Works Additional 100% of current fee Meet requirements of TRCA Emergency Infrastructure Works Protocol. DELETE as we no longer perform this function - DFO Offsetting Advice To be determined Subject to negotiation Added for clarity -Clearance Letter Service Agreement Minor Major Included in agreement $ 1,805.00 $ 2,585.00 EA Service Delivery assumes one submission In the cases where a clearance letter is requested at the time of voluntary project review (given that information has been submitted as part of that review) only the voluntary project review fee shall apply. Revised for Clarity Screening Assessment Added for clarity Service Agreement $295 Included in agreement $ 310.00 Screening letter provided identifies TRCA areas of concern If a permit is required, the fee will be deducted from the permit review fee. Archaeology Screening (on TRCA-owned Lands Only) $525+ HST $ 560.00 + HST Works on TRCA-owned lands, including lands under a management agreement with another agency or organization, require an archaeological screening by a TRCA Archaeologist. Through the screening process, the archaeologist will determine if further investigation is required. Additional fees will be charged for archaeological investigations, where required. GIS Fee - $80/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD) Revised to match Development Planning - $50/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD) Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and service agreement partners are exempt 695 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 Engineering Data Request - $130+ HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD) - $105 + HST for HEC-RAS - modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet Revised to match Development Planning - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet - $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files) Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and service agreement partners are exempt Additional Submissions 25% of current fee for each additional submission Additional Site Visit Charges Minor $1,405 Standard $2,605 Major/Complex $4,125 $ 1,475.00 $ 2735.00 $ 4330.00 The first site visit is included as part of the application review fee Additional Meeting Charges Note: remote meetings using digital technologies are encouraged wherever feasible. In such instances, the “In TRCA Offices” rate will be charged. In TRCA Offices: Minor/Standard $990 Major/Complex $1,565 In Client/Consultant/Municipal Offices: Minor/Standard $1,405 Major/Complex $2,225 $ 1,040.00 $ 1,645.00 $ 1,475.00 $ 2,335.00 Standard meetings are included in EA standard service delivery. Additional meetings may be required at the proponent’s request. Scheduled meeting are planned for 1.5 hours; fees include additional time to organize and review minutes. For shorter meetings or meetings not requiring meeting minutes, fees may be reduced as approved by the Associate Director or Senior Director. Added for clarity from the Development Planning schedule - Expedited Review Additional 100% premium of applicable fee per submission Expedited review of submission within two (2) weeks is subject to availability of staff, and approval of EA Associate Director or Senior Director, as workload allows. File Continuation (All Files) Top-up to current cost in fee schedule Applicable to files that continue beyond two years from the date of submission of the application. See Definition (i) on page 4. 696 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 Fee Schedule Voluntary Project Review Application Type 2016-7 Application Fee Recommended 2018 – 5% increase Notes Individual or Municipal Class EA or Schedule B & C or equivalent Service Agreement $3,195 Minor $4,410 Standard $8,820 Major $16,060 Complex * $17,240 $ 3,355.00 $ 4,630.00 $ 9,260.00 $ 16,865.00 $ 18,100.00 Minor - EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final) Standard/Major/Complex - EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions (including final) *A site specific discussion related to size and complexity of the application will be conducted. Municipal Class EA – Schedule A/A+ or equivalent. Service Agreement $1,325 Minor $3,475 Standard $4,190 Major $6,750 $ 1,390.00 $ 3,580.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 6,965.00 EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final) Routine Infrastructure Works Service Agreement $390 Minor $1,750 Major $2,500 $ 410.00 $ 1,805.00 $ 2,585.00 EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final) Emergency Infrastructure Works Additional 100% of current fee Meet requirements of TRCA Emergency Infrastructure Works Protocol. DELETE as we no longer perform this function - DFO Offsetting Advice To be determined Subject to negotiation Added for clarity -Clearance Letter Service Agreement Minor Major Included in agreement $ 1,805.00 $ 2,585.00 EA Service Delivery assumes one submission In the cases where a clearance letter is requested at the time of voluntary project review (given that information has been submitted as part of that review) only the voluntary project review fee shall apply. Revised for Clarity Screening Assessment Added for clarity Service Agreement $295 Included in agreement $ 310.00 Screening letter provided identifies TRCA areas of concern If a permit is required, the fee will be deducted from the permit review fee. Archaeology Screening (on TRCA-owned Lands Only) $525+ HST $ 550.00 + HST Works on TRCA-owned lands, including lands under a management agreement with another agency or organization, require an archaeological screening by a TRCA Archaeologist. Through the screening process, the archaeologist will determine if further investigation is required. Additional fees will be charged for archaeological investigations, where required. 697 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review. Peer review of coastal reports prepared for shoreline projects Additional charges will be determined on a case by case basis. GIS Fee - $80/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD) Revised to match Development Planning - $50/hour + HST data preparation - $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD) - $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD) Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and service agreement partners are exempt Engineering Data Request - $130+ HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD) - $105 + HST for HEC-RAS - modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet Revised to match Development Planning - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet - $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files) Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and service agreement partners are exempt Additional Submissions 25% of current fee for each additional submission Additional Site Visit Charges Minor $1,405 Standard $2,605 Major/Complex $4,125 $ 1,475.00 $ 2735.00 $ 4330.00 The first site visit is included as part of the application review fee Additional Meeting Charges Note: remote meetings using digital technologies are encouraged wherever feasible. In such instances, the “In TRCA Offices” rate will be charged. In TRCA Offices: Minor/Standard $990 Major/Complex $1,565 In Client/Consultant/Municipal Offices: Minor/Standard $1,405 Major/Complex $2,225 $ 1,040.00 $ 1,645.00 $ 1,475.00 $ 2,335.00 Standard meetings are included in EA standard service delivery. Additional meetings may be required at the proponent’s request. Scheduled meeting are planned for 1.5 hours; fees include additional time to organize and review minutes. For shorter meetings or meetings not requiring meeting minutes, fees may be reduced as approved by the Associate Director or Senior Director. 698 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 Added for clarity from the Development Planning schedule - Expedited Review Additional 100% premium of applicable fee per submission Expedited review of submission within two (2) weeks is subject to availability of staff, and approval of EA Associate Director or Senior Director, as workload allows. File Continuation (All Files) Top-up to current cost in fee schedule Applicable to files that continue beyond two years from the date of submission of the application. See Definition (i) on page 4. Fee Schedule for Revisions and Permit Reissuances/Extensions Application Type 2016-7 Application Fee Recommended 2018 – 5% increase Notes Revision to Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Minor/Standard change - 25% of current fee Major/Complex change - 50% of current fee EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions. Revision to Voluntary Project Review Minor/Standard change - 25% of current fee Major/Complex change - 50% of current fee EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions. Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Reissuance/Extension (one- time only) 50% of current fee for each additional year See General Notes #9 on page 1. Added for clarity - Expedited Permit Revision or Re- issuance with Revisions Additional 50% premium of applicable revision or reissuance fee Expedited review of submission within 2 weeks of request subject to availability of staff and approval of EA Associate Director or Senior Director, as workload allows. Revision to MNRF Fisheries Timing Window – Request for extension $6,065 $ 6,370.00 TRCA will review request and if appropriate, provide clearance if a Fisheries Timing Window Extension is required to facilitate project implementation. Note that MNRF is responsible for timing window modifications related to endangered aquatic species. Fee Schedule for Environmental Management Plans Application Type 2016-7 Application Fee Recommended 2018 – 5% increase Notes Environmental Management Plan Minor $4,380 Standard $8,845 Major $14,005 Complex $17,035 $ 4,600.00 $ 9,285.00 $ 14,705.00 $ 17,885.00 Service agreement partners are exempt. EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions. An EMP may be required as part of the Voluntary Project Review process; appropriate fees will apply. Repeat Submission 25% for each additional submission 699 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 26, 2018 File Continuation (All Files) Top-up to current cost in fee schedule Applicable to files that continue beyond two years from the date of submission of the application. See Definition (i) on page 4. Fee Schedule for Compliance Monitoring* Note 1 Application Type 2016-7 Application Fee Recommended 2018 – 5% increase Notes Permit Non-Compliance – Unauthorized Works Additional 100% of applicable permit fee or fees Fee to resolve each issue. Fee includes up to two site visits. As needed, additional site visit fees will be charged. Permit Non-Compliance – Authorized Works Additional 50% of applicable permit fee Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of permit revision fee. Fee includes up to two site visits. As needed, additional site visit fees will be charged. Review of Long-term Site Monitoring Reports (1-3 years) To be determined Subject to negotiation Site Visits and Meetings associated with Longer- term monitoring To be determined Subject to negotiation Additional Site Visit Charges up to ½ day $770 up to 1 day $1,545 $ 810.00 $ 1,620.00 Additional fees will be charged to projects where ongoing compliance warrants follow-up visits: 1. Up to two site visits are included as part of the initial permit or voluntary project review application. 2. Up to one site visit fee is included in the revision fee. 3. Up to one site visit fee is included in the permit reissuance/extension fee. Environmental Management Plan Compliance To be determined Subject to negotiation Review of Compliance Reports Included in the permit review fee Review and comment on compliance reports as required through the permitting or Voluntary Project Review processes. Negotiated Restoration Agreements To be determined Based on the scope of compliance issue. 700 Permit Applications Received -2017 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Attachment 6 701 Planning Applications Received -2017 72 70 161 134 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Attachment 7 702 January 12, 2018 Ms. Carolyn Woodland Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace & Communities Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan L4K 5R6 Dear Ms. Woodland, RE: TRCA 2018-2019 Planning and Permitting Service Delivery and Fee Schedule Update On behalf of the members of the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) we would like to thank you for making a presentation at the December 14th BILD consultation meeting, regarding the TRCA’s Planning and Permitting Service Delivery and Fee Schedule Update. We also appreciate the opportunity to submit formal comments on the draft fee schedule. The following comments are submitted in advance of this new fee proposal being brought forward to the TRCA’s Board on January 26, 2018. Changes to the 2018-2019 fee schedule includes achieving 100% cost recovery, incorporating a cost of living increase of 5% to cover annual increase in the cost of staffing and benefits, and scoped changes to select planning and permitting fees which includes addressing current funding deficiencies for Engineering and Ecology existing budget deficiencies and provide funding for additional staffing. The increase in staffing includes the addition of one new engineer, hiring an additional geotechnical engineer, add an additional Senior Planning Ecologist and extend contracts for contract planners working on files within York Region. As indicated at the consultation meeting, the proposed changes by the TRCA are to optimize and slightly increase capacity only to address existing service level gaps. They also seek to optimize efficiency by working with BILD members to improve the quality of submissions and to address project management gaps and reviewing and implementing internal efficiency improvements. BILD encourages this intent with respect to these changes. We acknowledge and appreciate that at our December 14th consultation meeting, the TRCA presented its efforts to track trends, streamline processes, identify opportunities for adding value for service, as well as hire additional staff to address the increase in work associated with applications in York Region. This is a necessary component of any service delivery model that has associated fees. Specific comments and recommendations: Due to the large number of site plan applications, we suggest that a dedicated site plan review team would be of assistance. This would allow for these types of applications to move along faster. Attachment 8 703 Recognizing changes to service requirement varying from municipality to municipality, BILD suggest that the TRCA review Memorandums of Understanding it has with its municipal partners to ensure that these are up-to-date and reflect the most current situation. BILD would like to see TRCA consider standardized review times for planning applications that have satisfied all of TRCA’s pre-application requirements. Finally, we suggest that additional training is needed with the municipalities, specifically with respect to what types of applications should be sent to the TRCA, to ensure that only applications that pertain to the TRCA’s scope of work/review are being forwarded to the conservation authority. BILD appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Planning and Permitting Service Delivery and Fee Schedule Update and we look forward to a response to these comments. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We look forward to discussing the above comments in the near future. Sincerely, Nicole MacInnis Planning Coordinator, Policy and Government Relations cc: Jason Bottoni, BILD Peel Chapter Chair Gary Switzer, BILD Toronto Chapter Chair Frank Filippo, BILD Durham Chapter Chair Michael Pozzebon, BILD York Chapter Chair BILD Peel, Durham, Toronto and York Chapter Members 704 RES.#A152/17 - ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Contract #10006931. Award of Contract #10006931 for the supply and installation of a 25 metre long prefabricated corten steel pratt truss bridge at the Lakeview Area of Albion Hills Conservation Area, in the Town of Caledon, Region of Peel. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: David Barrow THAT Contract #10006931 for the supply and installation of a 25 metre long corten steel pedestrian bridge at Albion Hills Conservation Area be awarded to Bronte Construction Ltd. for the total cost not to exceed $273,732.90 plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Albion Hills Conservation Area (AHCA) is TRCA’s most visited conservation area with over 158,000 annual visitors. Located in the Region of Peel within the Town of Caledon, AHCA is a large nature-based recreation, education and agriculture facility situated on 495 hectares of primarily forested land. A master plan for the property was developed to help restore existing infrastructure, adapt to changing trends in recreation/tourism, and accommodate the growing population in the Town of Caledon and Region of Peel. At Authority Meeting #08/17, held on October 27, 2017, Resolution #A183/17 was approved, in part, as follows: WHEREAS the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated April 2016 was approved in principle at Authority Meeting #3/16 by Resolution #A40/16; AND WHEREAS the draft Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan dated April 2016 was endorsed by the Town of Caledon in April 2017 and supported by the Region of Peel via a letter dated March 2016; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff is actively exploring a phased approach for an expansion plan of Albion Hills Conservation Area (AHCA), and future relationships between AHCA Hills and nearby TRCA lands and projects; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Albion Hills Conservation Area Master Plan be approved; 705 THAT staff continue to implement the recommendations within the Plan according to the budget and work plan;… The Albion Hills Master Plan included recommendations for the renewal of the Lakeview Area within AHCA, following the decommissioning of the dam. TRCA staff worked with the landscape design firm Dillon Consulting to develop a site plan for this restored area which seeks to better accommodate both the existing uses and the growing attendance and scale of events taking place across the property. One of the critical components within this site plan was to replace the existing undersized wooden crossing with a bridge that could accommodate the growing attendance and scale of events taking place across the property. In September 2017, TRCA staff hired the engineering firm AMTEC Engineering Ltd. to produce the detailed designs, construction drawings and specifications for the new pedestrian bridge project. AMTEC Engineering will remain on contract throughout the construction process for Contract #10006931 to conduct site inspections and ensure conformance to the contract drawings. RATIONALE Request for Quotation (RFQ) #10006931 was publically advertised on-line at www.biddingo.com on December 19, 2017 with a mandatory site meeting held on December 22, 2017. The following companies attended the mandatory site meeting: Hobden Construction Bridgecon Iron Bridge Fabrication Orin Contractors Corp. Loc Pave Construction Lancoa Contracting Metric Contracting Grascan Construction Hawkins Contracting Services Soncin Construction Dagmar Construction Bomar Landscaping Elp Environmental CSL Group Ltd. Ultimate Construction Inc. Mcpherson Andrews Contracting Ltd. Serve Construction Esposito Brothers Construction Bronte Construction Bids closed on January 10, 2018 and were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee (Kate Pankov, Lisa Moore and Michelle Sirizzotti) with the following results: COMPANY TOTAL COST (Plus HST) Hobden Construction $297,793.50 Bridgecon No Bid Iron Bridge Fabrication No Bid Orin Contractors Corp. $350,000 Loc Pave Construction $318,475 Lancoa Contracting No Bid Metric Contracting $333,600.00 Grascan Construction $338,980.00 Hawkins Contracting Services $322,563.59 Soncin Construction No Bid Dagmar Construction No Bid Bomar Landscaping No Bid Elp Environmental No Bid 706 COMPANY TOTAL COST (Plus HST) CSL Group Ltd. $369,613.00 Ultimate Construction Inc. $358,444.06 McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. $294,786.70 Serve Construction $322,369.00 Esposito Brothers Construction No Bid Bronte Construction $273,732.90 Following the bid submission process, Parks and Culture staff and AMTEC Engineering conducted a thorough analysis of the bids, as well as an analysis of references and experience. Staff recommends that Contract #10006931 be awarded to Bronte Construction Ltd. for the supply and installation of a 25 metre corten steel pedestrian bridge at a total cost not to exceed $273,732.90, plus a 15% contingency, plus HST; they being the lowest cost bid that meets TRCA’s specifications. As AHCA is open to the public year-round, construction has been planned during the shoulder season for the facility starting in March 2018 with substantial completion confirmed by May 24, 2018. Included in the tender pricing was site control construction fencing around all construction activities to prevent public access, and signage to be placed around the construction area which will inform the public of all activities and timelines. FINANCIAL DETAILS The funds required for this project are located in account 440-58 Albion Hills Master Plan with funding provided through the Region of Peel capital levy. This amount includes a 15% contingency for the project. Report prepared by: Kimberly Krawczyk, extension 5862 Emails: kkrawczyk@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards@trca.on.ca Date: January 10, 2018 ______________________________ 707 RES.#A153/17 - HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA MUNICIPAL WATER SITE SERVICING PROJECT Contract #10006683. Award of Contract #10006683 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials necessary for the installation of municipal water services within Heart Lake Conservation Area, in the City of Brampton, Region of Peel. Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Maria Kelleher THAT Contract #10006683 for installation of municipal site servicing within Heart Lake Conservation Area, City of Brampton, be awarded to AVERTEX Utility Solutions Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $429,124, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Heart Lake Conservation Area (HLCA) is located at 10818 Heart Lake Road in the City of Brampton. It is an outdoor public recreation facility that offers the surrounding community with access to greenspace and activities that promote health and wellbeing. Opened to the public in the 1960’s, this property is now host to more than 130,000 annual visitors. HLCA underwent a master planning process that was completed in 2006. This Plan made recommendations for significant recreation infrastructure upgrades required to revitalize and renew the property. As a result of this renewal plan, HLCA now features a pool and splash pad facility, new office and workshop, and is host to new partnerships with Tree Top Trekking, among many others contributing to a significant growth in attendance over the past several years. Historically, HLCA was an integral component of infrastructure within the City of Brampton as it was the location of the original municipal water supply for the City. The original system consisted of three municipal wells within HLCA before the Region of Peel lake-based municipal system arrived in the early 1970’s. Water from the wells was supplied to the City by a 300mm (12 inch) diameter cast iron pipeline running south through HLCA towards Sandalwood Parkway. Currently, that same pipeline serves as a water service into the site such that the flow direction has been reversed. 708 As a result of the change in use of the old large diameter pipeline at HLCA, very low and intermittent flows through an oversized and aging pipeline are considered to be the principal causes of low chlorine residuals at the north end of the park. The modified operating conditions for the pipeline (flow reversal) have likely contributed to significant corrosion, tuberculation (development of corrosion inside iron pipes) and biofilm growth in the line that now services the park. TRCA has made significant efforts to gain support and solicit funding for the provision of new municipal site water servicing to HLCA with various funding requests and grant applications submitted over the past several years. In 2017, TRCA was informed by Region of Peel that Infrastructure Ontario, who is responsible for overseeing the Clean Water Wastewater Fund (CWWF) program, had indicated that several projects (totaling $104 million) submitted for funding by the Region of Peel were eligible for funding, and the allocation of this funding will be made in January 2017. This funding, included a $375,000 contribution towards the Heart Lake Conservation Area Municipal Site Water Servicing. In 2017, TRCA hired R.J. Burnside consultants to complete the following scope of work by working closely with TRCA and Peel Region staff: Conduct a pre-design assessment of the site; Provide and present several design alternatives to TRCA and Region of Peel; Complete construction drawings and detail design specifications; and Carry out contract administration throughout the construction process. Throughout each phase of the design process, TRCA staff received detailed comments from the Region of Peel on the selected option, and obtained feedback and approvals from internal teams, including Park Operations, Ecology, Planning, Surface Water and Archaeology. RATIONALE Tender #10006683 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on December 14, 2017. The following eight firms attended a mandatory site information meeting held on December19, 2017: Vanegmond Construction (2005) Ltd. Sam Rabito Constructionb Sub Terrain Directional Drilling AVERTEX Utility Solutions Inc. Earth Boring Bronte Construction R.B. Somerville Hard Rock Bids closed on January 10, 2018 and were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee (Kate Pankov, Lisa Moore and Michelle Sirizzotti) with the following results: 709 BIDDERS TOTAL (Plus HST) Vanegmond Construction (2005) Ltd. $865,350.00 Sam Rabito Construction No Bid Sub Terrain Directional Drilling $609,920.00 AVERTEX Utility Solutions Inc. $429,124.00 Earth Boring $ 799,087.80 Bronte Construction No bid R.B. Somerville $ 547,335.42 Hard Rock $ 832,880.00 TRCA staff and R.J. Burnside reviewed the bid received from AVERTEX Utility Solutions Inc. against its own cost estimate and determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of AVERTEX’s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that AVERTEX is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the bids received, staff recommends that AVERTEX Utility Solutions Inc. be awarded Contract #10006683 for municipal water site servicing within Heart Lake Conservation Area for a total amount of $429,124.00, to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus a 20% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications. The project is scheduled to be substantially completed by March 31, 2018. Heart Lake Conservation Area is currently closed for the season and will open to the public on April 28, 2018. As the park still experiences walk-in traffic from the local community, construction fencing and signage around the construction area informing the public of all activities and timelines was included in the tender pricing. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds required to complete this project are available from the Region of Peel Capital Funding as well as the Clean Water Waste Water Fund through Infrastructure Ontario, within account code # 420-70. Report prepared by: Kate Pankov, extension 6418 Emails: kpankov@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: dedwards@trca.on.ca Date: January 10, 2018 ______________________________ 710 RES.#A154/17 - LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION PROJECT Contract #10006772. Award of Contract #10006772 for the supply and delivery of 19,500 tonnes of 300-600mm rip-rap stone. Moved by: Chris Fonseca Seconded by: David Barrow THAT Contract #10006772 for the supply and delivery of 19,500 tonnes of 300-600mm rip-rap stone to the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project in the City of Mississauga, be awarded to J.C. Rock Ltd for a total unit price of $29.50 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $575,250.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded suppliers, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Regional Municipality of Peel, Credit Valley Conservation and TRCA are collaborating in the development of a new natural waterfront park amenity along the eastern waterfront in the City of Mississauga, known as the Lakeview Waterfront Connection. The project goals and objectives are to: provide public access to and along the waterfront, recreate lost coastal wetlands, allow fish access to Serson Creek, re-establish extensive new meadow and forest coastal habitats, and to soften the existing shoreline by increasing the amount of beach habitat within the area. The Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project is being constructed in various stages. Construction of the first and second rubble confinement cells were completed on March 31 and October 5, 2017 respectively, with construction of the third confinement cell to be completed by March 31, 2018. Earth filling of cell 1 has been completed with filling of cell 2 commencing the week of October 6, 2017 with an estimated completion date of early April 2018. In order to mitigate lower than anticipated rubble volumes and to ensure continued capacity to place imported fill material from the Region of Peel and private sources, staff propose to supplement available rubble supplies as required with 300-600 mm quarry stone in order to ensure completion of the third confinement cell by March 31, 2018, prior to closing of the warm water fisheries window for in-water work. All or a portion of the purchased material may be salvaged at a later date and incorporated into final shoreline protection works as required. RATIONALE Quotation packages were sent to 16 suppliers as follows: James Dick J.C. Rock Ltd Atlantis Marine Construction Miller Group 711 Nelson Aggregate Glenn Windrem Trucking JC Rock Young Aggregates Btown Group Fowler Strada Aggregates Bot Aggregates Ritchie Logistics Allstone Quarry Redstone Quarry Dufferin Aggregates Furthermore, Request for Tender #10006772 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on December 5, 2017. The Procurement Opening Committee opened tenders on Wednesday, December 20, 2017 with the following results: Contract #10006772 - Supply and delivery of 19,500 tonnes of 300-600mm rip-rap BIDDER TOTAL UNIT PRICE (Plus HST) TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (Plus HST) J.C. Rock Ltd. $29.50 $575,250.00 Dufferin Aggregates $32.97 $642,915.00 Glenn Windrem Trucking $39.55 $771,225.00 CDR Young Aggregates Inc. $40.80 $795,600.00 Based on the tenders received, staff recommend that J.C. Rock Ltd be awarded Contract #10006772 for the supply and delivery of 19,500 tonnes of 300-600mm rip-rap stone for the unit cost of $29.50 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $575,250.00, plus HST. The contract is subject to a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff. Furthermore, TRCA will be conducting quarry inspections to verify that the material is of good quality and meets contract specifications. The licenses of the quarries which the lowest bidder will use to supply the aggregates have been verified to be legitimate and fully licensed using the Ontario government’s “find pits and quarries” online tool with the following link: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/find-pits-and-quarries. TRCA has also worked with J.C. Rock Ltd. on numerous contracts to staff’s satisfaction. This project to create a new park along Lakeview’s shoreline is in line with TRCA’s 10-Year Strategic Plan #3 ‘rethink greenspace to maximize its value’, Strategic Plan #4 ‘create complete communities that integrate nature and the built environment’, and strategic plan #7 ‘build partnerships and new business models’. These strategic plans are applicable as the Lakeview project will engage more people with nature, which will be integrated with the built environment, as well as strengthen TRCA’s partnership with the Region of Peel. 712 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is available from the Region of Peel in account 252-46. Report prepared by: Ron Ofer, 647-501-0856 Emails: rofer@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Puusa, 647-212-2941 Email: mpuusa@trca.on.ca Date: December 20, 2017 ______________________________ 713 RES.#A155/17 - ATLANTIC SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION AND PARTNERSHIPS To provide an update and report on the successes of the Duffins Creek and Humber River Atlantic salmon programs since 2013, and to seek continued support for ongoing partnerships to achieve Atlantic salmon habitat restoration objectives. Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Matt Mahoney THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) continue its partnership with Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), in the Humber River and Duffins Creek watershed working groups to pursue restoration goals for Atlantic salmon habitat in the Humber River and Duffins Creek watersheds; THAT TRCA continue to support the stocking of juvenile Atlantic salmon on its property at designated sites; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA and its partners approach its municipal partners and other interested stakeholders to seek opportunities to implement the Duffins Creek and Humber River Atlantic Salmon Habitat Restoration Strategies. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #7/13, held on September 27, 2013, Resolution #A/13 was approved, in part, as follows: ...AND FURTHER THAT TRCA report back on the successes of both the Duffins and Humber Atlantic salmon programs next year. This report provides an update and summary of the current partnerships and achievements realized through the Duffins Creek and Humber River Atlantic Salmon Habitat Restoration Program and will outline the future directions of restoration implementation. In 2006, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), Ministry of Natural Resources ad Forestry (MNRF) and 50 other partners launched a major initiative to restore a self-sustaining Atlantic salmon population to Lake Ontario and its streams. This treasured species is an important part of our natural heritage and part of Ontario’s rich biodiversity. Atlantic salmon were extirpated over 100 years ago due to loss of steam habitat, overfishing and other human induced factors. Restoring a viable Atlantic salmon population was to be achieved through stocking three genetic strains of Atlantic salmon first in the Duffins Creek watershed and then in the Humber River watershed. Habitat restoration initiatives were initiated under this program to ensure that there were suitable habitat conditions for Atlantic salmon throughout all life stages. 714 The re-introduction of Atlantic salmon into Toronto region watersheds is a program led by MNRF, in partnership with OFAH, conservation authorities, and many other stakeholder groups and clubs. TRCA first partnered with the program in the Duffins Creek watershed in 2006, focusing on the restoration of aquatic and contributing habitat. To accomplish this TRCA, MNRF and OFAH developed the Duffins Creek Atlantic Salmon Working Group with the goal of developing a coordinated strategic approach to restoration efforts in the Duffins Creek watershed. Based on the success of the program in the Duffins Creek watershed, a similar working group was established in 2011 with the focus of targeting activities in the Humber River watershed. In 2013, the program was brought to the Authority to present on achievements and to garner support for continued work. TRCA was to report back with a summary of the success and achievements of the restoration program which are detailed further in this report. The delay in reporting was to ensure a significant and measurable deliverable could be achieved and to be able to report on the strategic partnership planning that was not completed until recently. Implementation and Deliverables (2013-present) There are many challenges facing Atlantic salmon recovery in the Duffins Creek and Humber River watersheds. Atlantic salmon splits its life cycle between Lake Ontario and its contributing rivers. Adult salmon migrate from the Lake to the upper watersheds to spawn. Juvenile salmon then spend one or two years in the rivers before migrating to the Lake. These characteristics expose Atlantic salmon to stressors across a wide variety of urban and rural landscapes. Furthermore, each life stage has its own set of specific habitat requirements. Restoration of aquatic habitat that support various Atlantic salmon life stages and the removal of barriers to connect movement are critical to the success of Atlantic salmon recovery. Since 2013, substantial gains in aquatic habitat restoration have been achieved through a continued partnership with OFAH, TRCA and MNRF. Project highlights include: removal of 12 barriers to fish passage; over 9 km of in-stream habitat restoration; and approximately 20 hectares of riparian habitat planted. In general, these restoration efforts have benefits to the natural system as a whole through in-stream shading, reduced erosion and sedimentation, increased fish passage, and improved in-stream habitat conditions. A long-term monitoring program has been ongoing through OFAH and MNRF to look at juvenile movement and recruitment. From earlier assessments in the Duffins Creek watershed, growth and survival in the streams of the juveniles is good, indicating that past and present habitat restoration efforts have made the streams suitable again for juvenile Atlantic salmon. A presentation was made at Authority Meeting #8/17, held on October 27, 2017, outlining the monitoring results of the resistance board weir that was installed in Duffins Creek to monitor Atlantic salmon movement (Resolution #177/17). Data collected from the Duffins Creek resistance board weir intercepted 21 Atlantic salmon between 2013 and 2015. There are also angler reports and photos of Atlantic salmon returns in the rivers. A 2017 monitoring report is expected to be completed by MNRF in 2018. Tables 1 & 2 summarize the habitat deliverables gained as a result of strong partnerships between all agencies. 715 Strategic Planning In the spring of 2016, the Atlantic Salmon Habitat Team created habitat subcommittees for each of the five priority watersheds (not including the Ganaraska River). Subcommittees were assigned to both Duffins Creek and Humber River watersheds and included representation from OFAH, MNRF, TRCA, Ontario Streams and Trout Unlimited. The objective of each subcommittee was to identify habitat need/gaps, define reaches by function (e.g. migration corridor, spawning/nursery habitat) and prioritize potential habitat projects within each watershed to provide direction for future restoration efforts. Priority has been given to feasible projects that increase the chance of successful adult returns. Beyond fish passage, other habitat restoration opportunities include the enhancement of spawning habitat and the thermal mitigation of on-line ponds. The opportunities identified by each subcommittee have been synthesized and summarized in a Draft report entitled Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program Phase 3 Habitat Plan 2016-2020. Habitat plans for Duffins Creek and Humber River watersheds is a component of the Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program 5 Year Implementation Strategy for 2016-2020. The Strategy identifies five objectives for Atlantic salmon recovery. The habitat plans are a multi-agency initiative to address Objective 2 of the Strategy: Continue to improve habitat in priority watersheds, including fish passage. More specifically, Objective 2 seeks to identify, prioritize, and develop actions to address stream habitat limitations in each selected watershed. This strategy will be the foundation of a multi-year implementation program and will be coordinated between agencies and other stakeholders and interested groups. RATIONALE Funding to target aquatic restoration is always limited; ensuring resources are applied to the most strategic projects is very important. Opportunities to partner and to coordinate restoration efforts are essential to ensure that financial resources are effectively applied and to pool resources for the greatest benefit. The past and future projects under the Atlantic Salmon Recovery Program will contribute to the goals of TRCA's Humber River Fisheries Management Plan and the Humber River Watershed Plan. Further, TRCA’s Restoration Opportunities Database and Integrated Restoration Prioritization Strategy were used to identify and implement restoration projects from 2013 to present. Finally, the Duffins Creek and Humber River watersheds working groups have synthesized and prioritized restoration opportunities through the Duffins Creek and Humber River Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program Phase 3 Habitat Plan 2016-2020 (DRAFT). This culmination of multi-agency restoration planning will facilitate a targeted and strategic approach to Atlantic salmon habitat restoration resulting in meaningful and efficient outcomes for the next three years. FINANCIAL DETAILS To continue implementing restoration projects that benefit Atlantic Salmon Recovery, funding is provided from both traditional and nontraditional sources. The traditional sources originate through the capital budget process from City of Toronto, Region of Peel, Durham Region and Region of York. However, habitat restoration projects are also supported from a variety of nontraditional sources and partners. OFAH is providing staff and resources, and have received support from various NGOs, community groups and other corporate sponsors. Under TRCA programming, funds are available in the following approved 2018 budgets: 129-46, 129-37, 111-91, and 109-15. In 2018, TRCA expects to complete six projects that contribute to the strategic Atlantic salmon program. These include one hectare of riparian restoration, half a hectare of wetland restoration, one kilometer of stream restoration, and the removal of two barriers to fish passage for an estimated cost of $500,000. 716 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE As prioritized in the Draft Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program Phase 3 Habitat Plan 2016-2020, TRCA plans to continue its partnership with MNRF and OFAH in regard to projects, information sharing and targeting restoration work. Taken together, this partnership maximizes chances for successful Atlantic salmon habitat restoration. Within the Duffins Creek watershed, the initial long list of priority projects was discussed with the habitat committee and refined to include those that present the most beneficial opportunities for Atlantic salmon habitat restoration. The majority of proposed projects are intended to increase the amount of available spawning and nursery habitat for stocked Atlantic salmon. The short list of 15 potential projects includes three sites focused on barrier (dam) mitigations, three sites focused on culvert replacements, four online pond mitigations (one being a large group of ponds), and the remaining six focusing on instream and riparian enhancements. Discussions with Parks Canada are also ongoing to explore implementing restoration projects within the Duffins Creek watershed portions of the Rouge National Urban Park that will benefit Atlantic salmon habitat, consistent with the objectives outlined in the five year Strategy. Within the Humber River watershed, Atlantic salmon habitat rehabilitation and outreach opportunities have been prioritized based on their proximity to known spawning/nursery habitat, their potential downstream impacts and their possibility to connect good habitat. The known barriers to Atlantic salmon migration on the Humber River were prioritized based on multiple factors. Barriers blocking access to large sections of migratory or spawning corridors would be given higher priority than barriers blocking smaller sections of the watershed. In total, 12 projects have been identified for implementation. Table 1: Duffins Creek Watershed Habitat Deliverables Project Barriers Mitigated (#) Wetland Restoration (ha) Stream Restoration (m) Riparian Restoration (m) Area Planted (ha) Volunteers (#) Annie Crescent Streambank Stabilization 0 0.0 50 150 0.2 10 Brock North Habitat Restoration 8 3.0 937 937 13.8 800 Brockridge Community Park Earth Day Stream Clean-up 0 0.0 6290 0 0.0 241 Greenwood Conservation Area Restoration 0 0.0 0 15 0.4 89 McKean Property Stream Restoration 1 0.0 20 72 0.1 0 Pickering Golf Course-Urfe Creek Barrier Removal 0 0.0 0 60 0.1 0 Transport Canada Lands Restoration 1 0.0 420 935 2.7 1276 TOTAL 10 3.0 7717 2169 17.1 2416 717 Table 2: Humber River Watershed Habitat Deliverables Project Barriers Mitigated (#) Stream Restoration (m) Riparian Restoration (m) Area Planted (ha) Volunteers (#) Duffy's Lane Restoration 0 90 90 0.1 1 Albion Hills Conservation Area Restoration 2 1400 710 3.8 249 Nashville Resource Management Tract Restoration 0 0 0 0.1 58 TOTAL 2 1490 800 4.0 308 Report prepared by: John Stille, extension 5396 Emails: jstille@trca.on.ca For Information contact: John Stille, extension 5396 Emails: jstille@trca.on.ca Date: January 8, 2018 ______________________________ 718 RES.#A156/17 - GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE CONFERENCE Ajax, 2018. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority collaboration with the Town of Ajax as it hosts the 2018 annual general meeting and conference for the binational Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jack Heath THAT the presentation by Rachael Wraith, Senior Communications Officer, Town of Ajax, be received; AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff collaborate with the Town of Ajax to support the 2018 annual general meeting and conference of the binational Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative is a binational coalition of over 130 mayors and local government officials working to advance the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The coalition focuses on issues including invasive species, contaminants, climate change mitigation and water diversion, amongst others specific to this unique and important geographic area. The annual general meeting (AGM) and conference is a three-day event which rotates between Ontario, Quebec, and the United States. Resolutions from past AGMs relate to both the Canada and United States federal governments for matters such as national funding of environmental protection programs, state and provincial issues such as oil pipelines, and municipal responsibilities such as drinking water supply infrastructure. This year’s event will run from June 13 to 15. While the 2018 agenda is not yet finalised and registration has not begun, information about past conferences is available at https://glslcities.org/events/annual-meeting/ and demonstrates this as an excellent forum to share knowledge on timely, relevant topics related to water quality, health and vitality. The AGM and conference also provide an annual networking opportunity for representatives from across the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence region. Delegates include high profile politicians, water quality experts, NGOs, and senior staff from TRCA member municipalities, other governments, and other partner organizations. 2018 will be the 15th anniversary of the conference; this year’s theme is “Charting a Course to Resilience”, which builds on a shared interest in water protection and advocacy solutions. TRCA has played an active role in a variety of binational and local Great Lakes issues, and continues to invest time and energy to convene other conservation authorities in the Great Lakes basin, and to collaborate with the federal and provincial governments in order to maximise our collective impact. 719 While conference planning is still underway, expected tours may include the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant and the Ajax waterfront. Confirmed speakers include Dan Egan, author of The Death and Life of the Great Lakes, and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Dr. Dianne Saxe. RATIONALE TRCA supported Ajax in their bid for hosting the event. Assisting Ajax with the organization of this conference affords TRCA an opportunity to showcase the partnership efforts of TRCA and our member municipalities, from the City of Mississauga in the west to Town of Ajax in the east, to improve the health of Lake Ontario and the waterfront over the long-term. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff time required to support the event will be made available through existing accounts. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff to work collaboratively with Ajax staff to assist as needed for the event. Report prepared by: Gary Bowen, mobile 416-271-8944; Maryam Nassar, extension 5937 Emails: gbowen@trca.on.ca; maryam.nassar@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Gary Bowen, 416-271-8944 Emails: gbowen@trca.on.ca Date: January 3, 2018 ______________________________ RES.#A157/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed Logan Homes (333568 Ontario Limited), CFN 58961. Acquisition of property located west of Ninth Line and north of Bloomington Road, in the Town of Whichurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B123/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT 1.21 hectares (3 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located west of Ninth Line and north of Bloomington Road, said land being Part of Lot 11, Concession 9, designated Block 33 on draft M-Plan by Lloyd & Purcell Ltd. OLS, Job 15-078, File W1-IX-11-1, in the Town of Whichurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Logan Homes (333568 Ontario Limited); THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; 720 THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A158/17 - VOLUNTARY PROJECT REVIEW Works Undertaken by Organizations Exempt from Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended. Summary report on the Voluntary Project Review of works undertaken by organizations exempt from Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended – Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses, through Voluntary Project Review letters issued during 2017. (Executive Res.#B124/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with crown corporations undertaking environmental assessments for infrastructure projects who are exempt from permits under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act to ensure that the five tests of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, control of flooding, erosion, pollution, conservation of land and dynamic beaches, are addressed during the detailed design stage of these projects in 2018. CARRIED ______________________________ Section II – Items for Authority Information COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES.#A159/17 Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Paul Ainslie THAT the committee move into closed session to discuss item 10.2.1 – Food Service and Public Events at Black Creek Pioneer Village as it pertains to the interests of a third party. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES.#A160/17 Moved by: Gino Rosati Seconded by: Michael Ford 721 THAT the committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED RES.#A161/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Section II Item 10.2.1 – Food Service and Public Events at Black Creek Pioneer Village, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #11/17, held on January 12, 2018, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ RES.#A162/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Section II Items 10.2.2 and 10.2.3, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #11/17, held on January 12, 2018, be received. CARRIED Section II Items 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT AND RANKING PROJECT (Executive Res.#B126/17) ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA PROJECT (Executive Res.#B127/17) ______________________________ Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A163/17- SECTION III – ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Section III item 10.3.1 – Black Creek Pioneer Village, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #11/17, held on January 12, 2018, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended RES.#A164/17 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Mike Mattos 722 THAT item 10.4 - Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended contained in Executive Committee Minutes #11/17, held on January 12, 2018, be received. CARRIED ______________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:45 a.m., on Friday, January 26, 2018. Maria Augimeri Chair /ks John MacKenzie Secretary-Treasurer 723