HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Committee Appendices 1988
E. )( , f
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
RECOGNITION POLICY
Approved at Authority Meeting #2/88
Resolution #25
March 25, 1988
-
E)c, 2.
RECOGNITION POLICY
A. Honour Roll Awards
1. Awards on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority will be granted to persons and/or
corporate bodies who have made a significant contribution
to the aims and objectives of the Authority.
2. Nominations will not be accepted for, nor awards granted
to:
( i) persons serving as Members of the Authority, its
Sub-Committees or Foundation at the time of
nomination:
( ii) staff members of the Authority serving at the time
of nomination.
3. Honour Roll Awards shall consist of:
(i) a citation on an illuminated scroll:
( ii) marked by a tree planted and identified with the
recipient's name;
(iii) trees so identified to be planted in the designated
areas around the Authority office and at Black Creek
Pioneer Village;
(iv) awards to be recorded in a display at the Authority
office and recipient of an award to be issued a
lifetime pass.
B. ~tro Reaion Conservation Award of Excellence
1. The Conservation Award of Excellence will be granted to
organizations and/or individuals making an outstanding
contribution to the direct management of renewable
natural resources through design and implementation of
projects within the Authority watershed.
...2...
EX.3
Recognition Policy Page 2
2. Applications and/or nominations for the Authority's Award
of Excellence for the design and implementation of a
conservation project(s) will be accepted, for
consideration by a panel of judges, from:
( i) municipalities or other public sector
organizations;
( ii) private sector groups;
(iii) individuals, who are not currently members or staff
of the Authority, for planning and managing their
properties for conservation purposes.
3. The Awards be limited to one per category per year.
4. Each Metro Region Conservation Award of Excellence shall:
(i) consist of an engraved plaque
(ii) be presented by the Authority on a suitable occasion
( iii) be recorded on a display at the Authority office and
be given other appropriate recognition.
C. service Recoanition Awards
The Service Recognition Award Program was created to recognize
Authority Members, Foundation Members, Authority Committee Members,
Volunteers and staff, on an annual basis, as follows:
l. Authoritv Members:
(i) with 3 years of service to be recognized with a
silver Authority logo;
( ii) with 6 years of service to be recognized with a
lifetime pass and gold Authority logo;
(iil) with 10 years of service to be recognized with gold
award and to be recorded in a permanent display at
the Authority office.
...3...
E~.~
Recognition Policy Page 3
2 . Foundation Members. Authority Committee Members and
Volunteers:
Persons eligible for awards are those that provide their
services as Members of the Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Foundation and Authority Committees.
Volunteers eligible for awards are those that provide
their services on a continuina basis and who provide more
than 40 hours of service per year.
(i) with 3 years of service to be recognized with a
silver Authority logo;
(ii) with 6 years of service to be recognized with a
lifetime pass;
(iii) with 10 years of service to be recognized with a
gold Authority logo.
3. Authority Staff:
Regular staff is eligible for all the awards listed
below. Supplementary staff eligible for awards (i) and
(ii) are those that provide their services on a
continuina basis and who provide more than 120 hours
of service Der Year.
(i) staff in all categories of the Authority, with a
minimum of 10 years of service to be recognized with
a silver award;
(ii) staff in all categories of the Authority, with a
minimum of 15 years of service, or on retirement or
when leaving the employ of the Authority with 10
years of service, to be presented with a lifetime
pass;
(iii) regular staff of the Authority, with a minimum of
25 years of service, or on retirement after 20 years
- of service, to be presented a gold award and to be
recorded in a display at the Authority office;
(iv) Regular staff of Authority on retirement to be
presented with a gift at a value equivalent to
$25.00 for each year of service.
. . .4. . .
E)(.5'
Recognition Policy Page 4
Presentations
Service Recognition Awards to Authority Members, Authority
Committee Members, Foundation Members, and gold awards to Authority
staff and volunteers are to be presented on a suitable occasion.
Service Recognition Awards to Authority staff and volunteers, other
than gold, are to be presented at an annual Authority staff
function.
TEB/mrp
1988.02.05
.
-
E~,"
TBE ME'l'ROPOLITAR TOROR'1'O AND REGIOR CONSERVATIOR AO'l'BORI~
REPORT ON
PURDIRG FORMULA
FOR
CORSERVATION AREAS
Approved at Funding Sub-Committee Meeting 13/88
on wednesday, september 7, 1988
E)(.7
TERMS OF REFERENCE:
At meeting #2/88, the Executive Committee established the Fund i ng
Sub-Committee, in response to a request made by the Council of ~etropolitan
Toronto contained in the municipality's capital budget for 1988 that nthe
Authority commence re-negotiating with its member municipalities the cost of
sharing Conservation Area capital and operating costsn and references made
to the shortfall in provincial grant fo~ shareable programs and the need for
multi-year targets for levy requirements.
A Sub-Committee consisting of Emil V. Kolb, Region of Peel; Lorna Jackson,
Region of York; William G. McLean, Region of Durham: Richard O'Brien,
Metropolitan Toronto and William T. Foster, Authority Chairman was named to
give consideration to the matters raised by the Metropolitan Toronto
Counc il .
BACKGROUND:
The Conservation Authorities Act gives an Authority and its member
municipalities some flexibility in determining how levy costs are to be
shared.
project Costs (i.e. Conservation Area Development):
Sections 25 (l) The Authority determines to the portion of total
26 (l) benefit that is offered to each participating
26 (2) municipality.
25(2) The municipality can appeal the apportionment
to the OMS.
Tr ad i t ionally, the M.T.R.C.A. has apportioned
Conservation Area development costs in the same
proportion as the discounted equalized assessment.
Maintenance Costs:
Section 27(2) The Authority determines approximate maintenance
and operating costs each year, and apportions them
according to benefit derived.
No appeal.
M.T.R.C.A. has traditionally apportioned maintenance
costs in the same proportion as the discounted
equalized assessment.
Administration Costs:
Section 27(3) Apportioned in proportion to discounted equalized
assessment.
No appeal.
With respect to the apportionment of project, operation and maintenance in
costs, there are a number of alternative methods which can be considered
addition to discounted equalized assessment.
Discounted Equalized Assessment:
This has been the basis for apportionment of all funding for public use
facilities for development, operations and maintenance, and has been the
basis of the general levy since shortly after the formation of the
Authority.
g~.~
This apportionment is based on the municipalities' ability to pay, and ~Ot
necessarily on benefit. T~e ~etro Toronto share has decreased from 91\ .~
. ..
1971 to 79% in 1988. The Regions' share has increased during the same
period from 9% to 21% as follows:
1988
Metro: 79% peel: 8% York: 11% Durham: 2%
It is anticipated that as the Regions continue to grow, Metro Toronto's
share will decline about l% per year with the Regions' share growing at up
to 1% per year.
The question of a funding formula was considered in 1984 as a part of the
provincial/municipal review of the Authority. As a result, it was agreed
that the funding formula for conservation areas would remain the same as in
the past, but it would be reviewed every five years. The current request of
Metropolitan Toronto comes earlier than the intended period but it is
appropriate to deal with it since the satisfaction of all municipalities
with the funding formula is important to the Authority.
REVIEW 01' THE ISSUES RAISED:
The Committee to review the funding formula and other issues raised by
Metropolitan Toronto met on three occasions and considered the means by
which a satisfactory formula could be achieved.
Staff was instructed to review the statistical information relating to
percentage of use and Authority facilities by municipality and to discuss
the effects of changes with the staff of the municipalities. As a result of
the consideration given by the Committee, it was found that a basis of
apportionment of municipal levy for the development, operation and
maintenance of the Conservation Areas, Black Creek Pioneer Village and the
Kortright Centre for Conservation, related to the percentage use of all
facilities by residents of municipalities would have merit.
It was further concluded that, since a change from equalized assessment to
percentage use would impact on the annual levy in amounts considerably in
excess of inflation, a phase-in period for the change would be appropriate.
To understand, in real dollar terms, the impact of the changes, appended to
this report is a schedule which illustrates the impact of the proposed
change on general levy over the next three years.
It was also noted that the recommendations of the province of Ontario, as
set out in the report entitled, A Review of the Conservation Authorities
Program - Report, dated December, 1987, would reduce grants avallable to the
Metro Region Conservation Authority to 40%. This would have a very serious
impact on the municipalities over and above the changes proposed in the
funding formula. A 40% grant rate in 1988 would have the effect of
tranSferring about $700,000 to the municipal levy. It would be appropriate
for the Authority and its member municipalities to strongly urge the
Province to retain the present 50% grant rate.
'IIIB ~'!M 'ftRIft'O All> RlliIai aHiBRVArIai AlIDDU'lY
PKPlmlIl 1tH>n<<; K.HIJIA
PJ()p()R- 1988 PR:>p(R- 1989 % CHAN::iE PROPOR- 1990 % CHANGE P OOPOR- 1991 % CHANGE 'I'CYI'AI .
TIONATE GENERAL TlOO/l.TE GENERAL OVER TlOOATE GEm:RAL OVER TIONATE GENERAL OVE/{ CHANGE
FPCroR LEVY FPCroR LEVY 1988 FPCroR LEVY 1989 FAcroR LEW 1990 1989-1991
$OOO's $OOO's $OOO'S $000'5 $000'5
METRO 78.7% 4,847.0 75.1% 4,738.6 -2.2 67.9 4,526.8 -4.5 60.7% 4,3l5.1 -4.7 -531.9
YORK 11.1% 715.7 l2.8% 769.9 7.6 l6.3% 872.9 13.4 19.8% 975.8 11.8 260.1
DURHAM 1.8% l45.6 2.1% 154.0 5.8 2.7% 171. 7 l1.5 3.2% l86.4 8.6 40.8
PEEL 8.4% 640.8 10.0% 686.6 7.l 13.1% 777.7 13.3 16.3% 871.8 l2.1 231. 0
-
lOO.O% 6,349.l lOO.O% 6,349.1 100 .0% 6,349.1 100.0% 6,349.l 0.0
-
NOI'E : . The 1989-199l General Levy is based on the 1988 levy without any inflationary adjustments and does not include the
proposed project on the development of the Authority's public use facilities.
. The proposed funding formula apportions levy between Metro TOronto and the Regions on the basis of attendance.
The Regions' share is apportioned among the three Regions on the basis of discounted equaliz~l ~ssessrnent. fT7
X
.
-D
E.X . JO
THE IIE'1'ROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGIOR COHSERVA'l'ION,ADTHORITY
REPORT OR
IIETROPOLITAH TOROR'l'O COURCIL'S POLICY
OR
SBAREABLB GRAR'l' PROGRAMS ARD IlUL'l'I-YEAR FORDING TARGETS
Approved at Funding Sub-Committee Meeting '3/88
on Wednesday, September 7, 1988
E;(. II
BACKGROOND
Metropolitan Toronto Councll has adopted a general policy calling for the
Province to provide funding for all programs up to the level of grant
eligibility. In many grant programs, the province has "capped" its level of
commitment. In spite of growing public demand and demonstrated eligible
costs, the province funds programs at a level which is less than that
defined in the cost sharing formula (e.g. 50' municipal/50' provincial).
This ongoing process has resulted in the transfer of a growing portion of
program funding to the property tax base and, in the case of the Authority,
admission fees and other revenue sources.
Also, Metropolitan Toronto staff has requested that the Authority define
long term funding targets in its maJor recreational facilities. This
request is in line with the Strategic Management Process being actively
pursued by the Authority. Metro staff has acknowledged the need for
strategic management and supports the Authority's progress to date.
Metropolitan Toronto's Policy on Shareable Programs
Metro Council's recommendation with respect to shareable programs
effectively limits the growth in levy applied to the Ministry-defined cost
categories of 'Administration' and 'program Administration' to the growth in
Ministry grants.
The Ministry's definition ~f 'Administration' extends beyond the typical
"head officeR type expenditures to include other costs such as operations
and maintenance of water control structures, resource management programs,
field centres' supervisory staff costs, taxes, liability insurance and the
cost of all Authority staff benefits.
MNR administration grants have increased in recent years at, or near the
level of inflation. On the other hand, the cost of statutory benefits and
the Authority's benefit package (volume, improvements, inflation and
experience ratings), taxes and insurance, together with some modest growth
in complement size (e.g. Enforcement Officer, Audit Assistant, Plan Review
Manager) have caused an increase in administration beyond the level of
inflation.
The Authority has maintained a Rbalanced budgetR between levy and grant by
shifting certain administration costs (most notably employee uniform costs
and Field Operations supplementary staff benefits) to operations and
maintenance budgets which are largely supported by revenues and levy, and by
introducing administrative charges for lawyers' letters, raising prices for
items such as firewood, and simply by being more efficient.
Multi-Year Targets
Metro Council's recommendation with respect to multi-year targets for
revenue in Authority facilities is aimed at providing a measure of stability
and predictability in the growth of the municipal levy. The target-setting
process would allocate further growth in self-generated revenues between
funding new or existing programs and reducing municipal levy.
A further requirement, although not forming part of the formal Council
recommendation, would see a target or formula established for each of
Kortright Centre, Black Creek Pioneer Village and the Conservation Areas as
a whole. These Metro Council recommendations would have the effect of
restricting the Authority's ability to raise the levy from the other Member
Municipalities and diminishing the Authority's ability to set priorities and
shift funds between programs. In effect, the Authority is placed squarely
in the middle of Metro Toronto's dispute with the province of Ontario's
grant policies.
~~.I~
To meet ~etro Toronto's requlrements it is proposed that:
l. 'Administration' be re-defined to include only the traditional
elements, i. e. such costs which span or are required to
administer or direct a variety of projects or programs;
2. 'operations and Maintenance' expenditures be defined to include
all direct costs required to effectively deliver programs,
operate and maintain public use areas and open spaces and
facilities:
3. The Authority would match the growth in municipal levy applied
to ftAdministration with the propertionate amount of MNR grant;
4. The Authority would undertake to limit the levy it applies to
the 'Operations and Maintenance' expenditure category to 33-1/3
of gross expenditures, as long as business and operating plans
remain outstanding. When such plans are complete, this target
would be confirmed.
The foregoing is consistent with the Authority's Strategic Management
process. In combination with the changes to the Funding Formula, it
provides Metropolitan Toronto with identifiable long-term funding targets.
Further, it gives Authority staff consistent and simplified criteria to
determine grant eligibility, which, in turn, should provide for easier
monitoring by Metro budget staff.
It may be necessary to review this further when the Province implements
changes identified in the recent review of Conservation Authorities.
-
ex. 13
'l'BE ME'l'ROPOLITAII TORDRTO ARD REGIOR CORSERVA'l'IOH AUTBORITY
REPORT OR
S'I'. LAWRERCE SQUARE
BOUSIRG PROJECT
.
october 1988
~~, , 4-
- -ST. LAWRENCE SQUARE
At Authority Meeting 15/88 the following resolution was approved concerning
the St. Lawrence Square, proposed housing project:
NEW BUSINESS
(b) proposed Housing project
Res. #140 Moved by: Howard Moscoe
Seconded by: Al Ruggero
THAT staff secure as quickly as possible details about the agreement
between the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario regarding a
proposed housing project at the mouth of the Don River:
AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Authority no later than October
1988 on the nature of these lands.
CARRIED.
Staff of the City of Toronto has since forwarded to our offices the
following information relating to the proposed St. Lawrence Square
neighbourhood:
l. The St. Lawrence Square concept plan (of July 1988).
2. Copies of the July reports to City Council.
3. A copy of the MOE-City Environmental Exemption Agreement.
4. A copy of the August 25/88 report on the Corporate work program
which was sent to the Executive Committee.
From these documents Authority staff has prepared this report highlighting
key points of Authority program interests.
~
LOCATIOR
The proposed St. Lawrence Square neighbourhood includes seventy acres of
underut il i zed industrial land and railway tracks lying between the
St. Lawrence neighbourhood (at parliament St.) and the Don River valley.
(See Map 1 prepared as part of the st. Lawrence Square concept plan of July
1988.)
The site of the proposed St. Lawrence Square neighbourhood lies entirely
within the flood plain of the Lower Don River. Further, it lies within
that portion of the flood plain identified by the Authority as a Flood
Damage Centre (Don River DCU) within the M.T.R.C.A. watershed plan 1980.
(See Map 2.)
PRELIIIIRUY CORCEP'l' AIID PROPOSAL
The July 7, 1988 report to City Council prepared by the Commissioners of
Housing, property, Planning and Development and Finance entitled .st.
Lawrence Square: Stage One - preliminary Concept proposalR is appended.
This report provides a concise description of the proposed St. Lawrence
Square neighbourhood.
To facilitate your review, the City's report outline is as follows:
page
l. origin of the Initiative 1
2. The proposal and Its Objectives 2
3. partnership with the province of Ontario 3
4. Expropriation, Acquisition and Relocation 5
5. planning and Development Process 7
6. Next Steps 9
7. Recommendations 9
At a special meeting of July l2, 1988, City Council adopted the
recommendations of this report.
EX. IS-
PROJECT COIlllERCEllENT AND LAND ACQUISITION
In addition to the Commissioners' report on the St. Lawrence Square concept
plan, a report prepared by the City of Toronto Legal Department was also
brought forward to the July l2, 1988 City Council meeting.
The purpose of this report was to obtain Council approval for those actions
by the City deemed necessary in order to commence the project and undertake
an expeditious land acquisition. It was identified that six applications
were necessary for the initial process:
I. Application for Exemption under the Environmental Assessment
Act.
2. Application for Approval to E~propriate all Lands with the
exception of the Railways' Lands.
3. Application for Waiver of the Hearing of Necessity procedure under
the Expropriations Act.
4. Application for Approval of the project under the Housing
Development Act together with the necessary Loan Guarantees.
5. Application for Ontario Municipal Board Approval of The Housing
Development Agreement.
6. Application to the Railway Companies and Marathon for acquisition
of their lands.
It is our understanding that City Council adopted the recommendations of
this report, and further that approval has been granted concerning the
applications identified by items 1-4 above.
CURRERT STA'1'OS
In addition to the above, a report by the City Commissioners, dated August
25, 1988, was forwarded to City Counci~ regarding the Corporate Work
Program for St. Lawrence Square.
within this report the Commissioners have addressed:
(A) Internal Organizational Arrangements - a corporate Steering
Committee, chaired by the Commissioner of Housing was recommend~d.
(B) External Organizational Requirements - the Commissioner of Housing
was recommended as the permanent municipal representative on the
Municipal/provincial Steering Committee. A Neighbourhood Advisory
Council was recommended.
(C) Corporate Work program - eight main components comprise the
corporate work program intended to produce a Master Plan:
l. Acquisition and Relocation Program
2. Business and Financial Plan
3. Environmental overview and Remediation plan
4. Land Use and urban Design planning/Official plan
and zoning By-law
5. Community Services plan
6. Infrastructure plan
7. The Development plan
8. Community Outreach program.
EX. ,1:,
M.T.R.C.A. PROGRAM IRTERE~
What does the St. Lawrence Square aean to the Authority?
. Authority interests are involved because the St. Lawrence Square lands
are regulated by the Authority under its Fill, Construction and
Alteration to Waterways Regulations, pursuant to the Conservation
Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1980.
. The st. Lawrence Square is included within the limits of the Don River
Flood Damage Centre il as approved by the Authority in its Watershed
plan 1980. Flood plain planning policies for Flood Damage Centres are
as set out by the Authority in the Flood Control Program of the
Watershed plan 1980, the updated Watershed plan 1986 and the "Flood
Plain Planning policy Review, M.T.R.C.A. Flood susceptible Sites,
November 1987" report.
. The St. Lawrence Square lies adjacent to the Keating Channel, a reach
of the lower Don River that has been under detailed investigation by
the Authority since 1979. Flood plain management studies addressing
flood flows, flood elevations and flood control remedial measures have
been conducted. Environmental studies associated with the dredging of
the Keating Channel and the disposal of the dredged material have been
conducted inclusive of these flood plain management studies.
. In 1987-88, the Authority retained Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd. to
undertake a preliminary engineering study of flood control remedial
works along the Lower Don River adjacent to the proposed St. Lawrence
Square development. The study concluded that it would not be cost
effective to protect the existing development due to a number of
factors including difficulty in protecting the area from sewer
surCharging during high river flows. The new development proposals
will need to assess the feasibility of flood control works including
improved storm drainage.
. The M.T.R.C.A. has recently been designated as agent for the Minister
of the Environment in the control ~f the quality of fill used in
lakefills. The soil in the area of the proposed development is
suspected to be contaminated, but there will be pressure to take
surplus material at lakefill locations. Specjal care will be required
in the preparation of a soil management plan by the proponents to
ensure an adequate clean up of the area and proper disposal of any
surplus material.
. Additional program interests such as Stormwater Management, Erosion
Control and Resource Management may also generate Authority
involvement.
What coaponents of the City of Toronto's Corporate ~ork prograa necessitate
action by the Authority?
Although the Authority may have indirect involvement in all eight major
components of the Corporate Work Program, immediate and direct action is
required within the following:
Component l. Acquisition and Relocation Program
The Expropriations Act requires that the City, within three months after
the registration of the plan of Expropriation, serve upon the registered
owner an offer of an amount in full compensation for his interest.
Consultants have been retained to prepare comprehensive appraisal reports.
Authority involvement is unavoidable in this process since all properties
in question are ~lood plain lands. The appraisal becomes more complex
given the status of the flood plain lands as a Flood Damage Centre.
parties acting on behalf of the City and parties acting on behalf of
individual property owners have initiated discussions with Authority
staff. The Authority's solicitors are involved.
E'X.17
Component 3. Environmental Overview and Remediation Plan
- ~-
The application for exemption of the St. Lawrence Square undertaking made
under the Environmental Assessment Act was approved subject to a number of
conditions. One such condition is the preparation of an environmental
overview study to be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for
approval before the Official plan Amendment(s) for the undertaking is
submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval under the
Planning Act. This report is to include:
II i i) a risk analysis of injury or damage from flooding or accidents upon
road and rail corridors in the area of the site".
The Authority will undoubtably be requested to provide technical
information, interpretation and/or analyses concerning the flood
characteristics of the Lower Don River-and the current and/or potential
flood risk associated with the development and redevelopment of the area.
The issue of flood control remedial works will need to be examined here.
In addition, the preparation of a soil management plan and the issue of
lakefill quality will be addressed through this process.
Component 4. Land Use and Urban Design planning/Official Plan and
Zoning By-law
It is anticipated that over the next eighteen months, the City Staff
Group, with assistance from others, will prepare the necessary land use,
urban design and social service facilities proposals for review by the
Master Planning Sub-Committee. This will result in a series of reports
leading to the required Official plan and zoning By-law amendments. The
City has noted that the first phase of this work may include recommendations
for a "Special policy Area" designation of the flood plain.
Authority staff has had on-going discussions (l982 - present) with City of
Toronto planners concerning the designation of this Damage Centre as a
Special policy Area (S.P.A.) . under current and proposed provincial flood
plain policy, an S.P.A. designation is required for flood prone
development/redevelopment to take place. where floodproofing to a level
less than that of the Regulatory Flood may occur.
The Authority's flood plain planning policies for Flood Damage Centre are
readily accommodated within the province's S.P.A. procedures: however, our
policy was developed relative to the theoretical application to develop or
redevelop an individual property and does not apply to a proposal for
major redevelopment of a significant portion of a Damage Centre Area.
The feasibility of flood control works, including improved storm drainage,
will need to be assessed through this process.
In its consideration of the St. Lawrence Square undertaking, the Authority
may need to resolve unique problems or issues not specifically addressed
by its current flood plain planning policies.
Component 5. Community Services plan
This component will include the review of park requirements. The St.
Lawrence Square concept plan of July 1988 notes:
"The potential to instigate long-term recovery of the west bank of the Don
River as a desirable urban open space corridor:.
under its description of parks and Open Space.
The Authority supports this objective of the concept plan and will work
with the City of Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto Department of Parks
and property in this regard.
component 6. Infrastructure plan
It is noted that the infrastructure plan for st. Lawrence Square will
require careful examination of many related issues, including flood plain
issues. Authority involvement will be required in a similar capacity to
that outlined within the preceding Corporate Work Program components.
E'i. J ~
SUMMARY
The St. Lawrence Square Municipal/provincial undertaking is recognized for
the local, regional and provincial interests that it will serve: however,
the issue of flood risk cannot be overlooked. The Authority, in
co-operation with the City of. Toronto and the Province of Ontario, will
endeavour to ensure that public safety is not compromised and that the
potential for property damage from flooding is not increased through
negligent planning for the proposed St. Lawrence Square neighbourhood.
.
- '. I. . _ . I . 'I . : 'I '...... ~ ~ ....... L'f ...- . \ ... "
"1 'cr-j''-Ir- ., [~- - . -' '- '~',";"J .,.::. " ,. ',....'
'.n L: . I '11 il'" t' "....~I-:. I t,.r' ..":...r"\'
I I J I ., c.... I' ," l" . .. :-.
I 14 J I ".'I!!' ~.:...=-.:.::: ~ ~, '. I. . !: .'." '11' [" I: ...' ,\. . . . ,,' ~
I '1_ JI:!' , ::r!:=,--', __ . : '"0 .... . ~.~ . -I. ..~..' u.. . 1"0.. "f ".' u
~ .l__ ~1...+_Jl_.. I ........... -- . -'. I' .'~'r -r: I L II
o ~ ~I_,~ .~_. ~fl;t;....'~ -~ . "~ 1_ i.::: ".:~~: .' J. ....., ',. I ' i:;: ' , "'M". .' " 1 ';
· t:. J 'I.J I IL ~""'<; . u .. -. , . ,'. . . '.. ..,- I. 0 r ' ~
. ~L J~"_ "il~'.~'~~' ~: .:_ J_ ~ ... ..::o~ i: ~L ,','J~~~_J: Jj' ..,-:,\:; ~ I ~ ',:~:I""I ',..,
--'....'--,r'''<:,!' ' 0 ~ .0=;,- --'. -. !',. '\ J.;,; ').;, ',~ . 0 ~' f'" ....;)
, J ,\'."J" I,. .: ;~.:..z J 1 \ J~, !. I , I' L: ' '
,. I 0 - 0..... I ~, -' - .L. J' " _.J L ;.0. ' [0 II I ,I \
, .. '1-'" - '1' ,-" .. --.,.=-::.1'-",....". ~,'.. '. ." ,," r
r.' .', -- c' " I.' . ,_. . o~. ' , 'rr', ;f: ""
~ I":::" 7l ~~ ~- .~- '1..:,: ; ,I ~ ~ ~'-~" 'i' ir -.r ,..:, ;' .' ~ ;'. '\ ' ') .:,..:',,:..;:~. .~
- 'J L. , : . __~:. . '...,,' I I.. J iiI . J!"'; .9 0 -- .
, ,r -01 I .. -, . '. -, ~ ., '. ~. Ii""
, J,jGr": ,~.I --. - '~'''' .". ".., yJ._, '... _,. , ;' i J '~~ .0
" - -I l . J" ...", ',. I '
'r - - ,'t - - - " . . ',' or.,.. .' -, -''1 ( .
I "--1 =J .... 'II -':. -~ .J.' ~ . I..., " t .... I . r . \", . I' -j
,'"d~:-""-..;! }:~:'.-': L " ',;,c, .1;=(;., '~:-"""il~J -. ;:.-:' ': :. o~:,'~?,"" ! '. f1"~--:_:~:'1~i'~"'4~".:j~:'r~1~~~"""~"' '
"~-"", ,..,.1 .",~,' ..,1._ '..' "'-."L"I~. -. r-- J"" , '" l r I I,,~ \
, ' ''',' . '.. - .. - ~' . I ~ 1 101 tf ~ ".r, U I' ..J' J,'. ,g
. ; , --',,,.,,, .. ,..;, ,;.......,': ~ -". , .. ~ l' KING' ftAFJI-Iol-..;l,j,'l AREA- ~ :\
. - -..-rp _.~ . . jo,':." I T-, L . ~. ..... .i II b ror I .' ~ rl IUIII:lII ~ . .~'~.J
--','.'-- ,.._,', ..' ,.,- ,. II~" 0...... ~',.... . jl.'i.....V,~ '
.J' ':'." '~:'''' l': .~ -J ,. r. ; IF' !~~~I 19 Ii f; I'd 1L ;i..I~ '\' '
...;~ -. , --,.." " -/ ...." -. 'J If
'. ", .:. 1 _... :_" " , !..,
___ _ _-1. - . )' - ", i I .
. -IF .....
----- '
.. ;'/-;>:' .,.J ~~ -'-_ '. "".;:-. ,.;
,.- I .' ...
.:.. . '. . ., 1-1 ',:, I" . . ....' -)'1c .. ~I U
I ' .'
L ;'i -, -=--' : '", ":;.:- ': '- / ':"' ;"i\ ii, ; /_ _ ' "
o , "'"f'- ,\\~ 0
L. I \ . l
J '
E : ll,_.~.'
,...' .. SITE m' ST. LAWRENCE SQUARE
", '.soD, I RES'f}{NT'AL NEIGHBOURHOOO
, __. ..:~ "~, \ . 1i H~ ~ TT 111m
, , - , r~
~~ .~
\~~ ~-
~, ......~...... TORONTO BAY v~........... ~
~90 ____
~, /,/. , Map 1
.- 't ,- ......
~ '
1 ,
- I.. ,.
- I ,I/}' >.
<." ,,'. . I ' r M;
-' l \ t '. I I' t \; · \1 I.. '- . r - '-- :. I ' , , .- t-- Lr)' I I 1.., ! _ ~
-
--0
"
\ -.
\
\\
\
eV'.
\,1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,\.
\" i
-
,
5>-r. LA.,J~~r..)C,€. ':>QuAfE- ....
DAMAGE CENTRE LIMITS _
METRES
'\ ~ ~<lOO ~o ;:;~;E~CE
\ FLOOD fEET
\' CONTROL PROGRAM DON RIVER
DAMAGE CENTRE
MAIN BRANCH AT LAKESHORE BLVD E. SITE 1
\ \ '-1 t 'I, T ' , (.J~{,,~i, !
, i . ,I' 11:_ (" I,. . i \'18B
I ' . ; .1, I
EX. .;21
CITY OF TORONTO
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
CITY PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
PLANNING , DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AND
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CONFIDENTIAL
FILE: .
July 7, 1988
To: City Council
Subject: ST. LAWRENCE SQUARE: STAGE ONE - PRELIMINARY CONCEPT AND
PROPOSAL .
Origin: Commissioners of Housing, Property, Planning and
Development and Finance
1. ORIGIN OF THE INITIATIVE
Both the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario have been
actively seeking major initiatives to deal with the continuing
shortage of affordable housing. The work of the Mayor's
Housing Action Committee, and the Province's Assured Housing
Program are specifically aimed at dealing with the problem.
For some time the City has been re-examining the potential of
a number of areas around the core. At the same time the
Province had commissioned a consultant study to examine the
feasibility of a major re-vitalization program in the area due
east of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood. At a meeting of the
Premier and the Mayor early in May, these initiatives came
together and paved the way for a signficlant opportunity for
provincial-municipal action in this area.
EX.' ;t~ -2-
-
.
City Council July 12, 1988
The document attached to this report presents a rationale for
the City to become involved as a partner with the Province of
Ontario in the re-vitalization of an area referred to as "St.
Lawrence Square". That document argues that this initiative
is necessary and justified in face of the continuing crisis
and represents a unique opportunity for a major intervention
by both levels of government. -It identifies areas of concern
that will be dealt with as planning and development proceeds,
and it presents a preliminary concept plan developed in
discussions between several civic departments in consultation
with a number of ministries of the provincial government.
This report seeks the support of City Council for the
initiative which, in turn, will result in further action both
by the Premier of Ontario and various commissioners in the
civic service. The City Solicitor also has a detailed report
before you today on various applications and an agreement
which will form the basis for several of those actions
referred. to previously.
2. THE PROPOSAL AND JTS OBJECTIVES
T tll:! "St. Lawrence Square" proposal represents a unique
opportunity to create a new community close to downtown and to
tackle the city's housing crisis head-on. Seventy acres of
under-ut ilized industrial land and railway tracks lying
between the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood and the Don River
Valley will be transformed into a new neighbourhood -- one
which will become home to at least, 2,000 people and will
contain both local employment and a full range of services.
"St. Lawrence Square .will be one-and-a-half times as large as
the new St. Lawrence Neighbourhood and will take between five
and ten years to be fully developed.
The key objectives of this initiative relate to an aging
industrial environment, the creation of a viable neighbourhood
and the continuing crisis in affordable housing in the City of
Toronto.
0 This is an aging industrial area which houses a mixture
of rail yards, shipping terminals, storage yards, truck
operating warehousing, wholesaling and automobile
-3- f)< .?3
City Council July 12, 1988
operations. fewer than a thousand people are currently
employed there. Environmental conditions are generally
poor after one hundred years of industrial use. The
opportunity therefore exists to remove noxious uses,
improve the quality of air and soil in the area and to
upgrade the physical quality of the environment all the
way to the Den River. .
~ S~cce5sive City Councils have pledged their commitment to
increasing the strength, diversity and livability of
Toronto neighbourhoods. The commitments made in St.
Lawrence and Frankel/Lambert, and currently in the
Railway Lands, to creating new neighbourhoods in formerly
aging areas have proven to be very successful. A good
opportunity exists in St. Lawrence Square to develop a
div~rse new community that echoes and builds on the
stL~ngths of existing neighbourhoods, that respects the
heritage of the area and which provides a wide range of
hou5ing opportunities for Torontonians.
o The ongoing housing crisis in Toronto leaves no option
but for City Council to take bold, imaginative and
decisive action. St. Lawrence Square offers the chance
to add between 6,000 and 7,000 units to the housing stock
of the city. The housing choices will be diverse in
terms of size and form; a healthy mix of families,
singles and seniors will be housed~ and, as in St.
Lawrence, a variety of tenures will be encouraged. Up to
60 per cent of the units will be targeted for affordable
housing producers.
o These are the major benefits: but there will be others.
The experience in Frankel/Lambert and St. Lawrence
indicates that the City's tax base will be expanded by a
factor of between five and ten. The employment base is
likely to increase. And both active and passive
recreation space will be augmented.
3. PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
The success of St. Lawrence Square will depend on the
willingness of the City and Province to work together. To
'E'f.'d~ I
-4-
Ci ty Council July 12, 1988
initiate:: immediate action, the City Solicitor will be
requesting authority to make an application for approval to
expropriate, and for applications to the Province of Ontario
'.,ith respect to the Environmental Assessment Act, the
Expropr La t ions Act and the Housing Development Act. Further,
he \~i 11 request authorization, for application for O.M.B.
approval of the financing and for the Commissioner of City
Property to negotiate agreements with the Railway Companies.
In a later report, dependent on the provincial response to the
intended applications, he will be requesting authority for the
City to enter into a Housing Development Agreement with the
Province as represented by the Minister of Housing, and for
approval to expropriate, the actual expropriation itself and
actions required out of that expropriation.
The Housing Development Agreement with the Province spells out
the obligations and expectations of both parties.
Essentially, it creates the framework for the development and
the financial foundation upon which St. Lawrence Square will
rest. A brief summary of its contents follows:
0 The Building Development is to have an objective of 7,000'
units, subje~t to the environmental review and planning
process. The housing mix is to comprise 60 percent
affordable (including 35 percent non-profit) and not more
than 40 percent market housing.
0 The Province of Ontario will guarantee financing,
including carrying costs, for the site acquisition and
preparation, planning and development, servicing and
environmental improvement of the new community. Total
costs, exclusive of carrying costs, are estimated to
reach $444 million at this time:
- development revenues should cover costs;
- if costs exceed revenues the City is responsible for
the first $20 million of deficit. Twenty million
dollars is the amount estimated for the replacement
and upgrading of existing infrastructure, for which
the City would have been responsible anyway;
---. "--- - -,
t:)<.f) ~
-5-
City Council July 12, 1988
0 The Province will ensure that 35 percent of the housing
units will be funded under its non-profit housing
programs and made available to the City;
0 The City :)f Toronto will acquire the land and expedite
the planning and development of the community . in an
expeditious and cost-effective manner;
0 'rhe City .....ill retire the outstanding financing on
disposition of development parcels;
0 The City will ensure that the detailed requirements of
the Ministry of the Environment are met;
0 The City .....ill submit semi-annually business and financing
plans to be agreed on between the Province and the City;
0 The City will report regularly on the status of the
development;
0 A Steering Committee of civic and provincial staff will
be created to monitor the development.
As noted previously, it is expected that this .partnership"
will be in existence for the best part of ten years. In
addition, the Provincial Government will be obligated to
provide operating subsidies for up to 35 percent ot the units
in St. Ldwrence Square for up to 35 years.
4. EXPROPRIATION, ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
The land proposed to be acquired to implement the
redevelopment scheme comprises some 62 acres. ot this total,
approximately 28 acres are held in private ownership with the
balance owned by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific
Railways.
The acquisition of the privately-owned land was given careful
consideration. To ensure the goal of providing affordable
t/<'. 2h -6-
\
City Council July 12, 1988
housing, in the desired time-frame, the most appropriate
method of acquiring the privately-owned land is by means of
expropriation. The Expropriations Act provides protection for
expropriated owners and ensures they will be treated fairly
and equitably.
Negotiations for the acquisition of the railway lands are
currently ongoing. The response to date has been positive and
we are confident the negotiated acquisition of this land can
be res01ved in the near future.
We realize the great impact this land assembly will have on
property owners, tenants and those working in the area. Once
the actual expropriation has been authorized, the adverse
impact on the businesses must be addressed. A firm
comprehensive strategy for businesses to be relocated is
essential. This relocation strategy includes:
- a select multi-disciplinary team to deal sensitively with
the relocation concerns of the affected business owners;
- an analysis of the longest period of time the affected
businesses could possibly stay on site prior to the
implementation of the redevelopment and if it is possible
for certain affected businesses to remain within the
redeveloped area;
- the identification of specific sites which are available
for relocation and a firm method of determining the cost
of those sites within a certain time frame;
- a cataloguing of privately-owned sites which are or
become available and may be suitable for relocation
purposes.
It must be noted that, although we will make every effort to
minimize business disturbance, relocation may not be readily
available or warranted in,some cases.
-7- Ex.2?
City Council July 12, 1988
5. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The St. Lawrence Square preliminary concept was prepared to
investigate the feasibility of developing a new, primarily
residential neighbourhood in the area to the east of the
existing St. Lawrence Neighbourhood, and to identify the
likely process, and policies,' that would be required to make
it a reality.
In accordance with the requirement of the Ministry of the
Environment, and prior to the submission of a Part II Official
Plan to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval under
the Planning Act, the City will undertake and submit an
Environmental Overview Study to the Minister of the
Environment for approval, following a process of public
notice, review and comment. The Environmental Overview Study
will identify key environmental concerns, including issues of
soil, ai r and ground water quality, noise and vibration,
waste, and, their effects on health; and contain, amongst other
things, a description of detailed environmental studies on
mitigation measures and strategies, the environmental planning
and approvals process, environmental agreements to be required
and a summary of public submissions.
The City will also develop detailed soil and groundwater
quality management programs for the lands, with each program
being submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for
approval, prior to passage of the Zoning By-law amendments for
the site(s) concerned. Each program will examine if, how and
where contaminated soil should be removed.
St. Lawrence Square will require the preparation and approval
of a new Part II Official Plan for the area, which will guide
the redevelopment of the neighbourhood. These policies will
be implemented by a revised zoning for the area. Issues to be
dealt with in the Plan will include, among others, the
residential character and density of the area, phasing, its
compatibility with adjacent areas, policies on parks and green
space, its effect upon local and regional transportation, and
environmental issues. This process, too, will include ample
opportunities for public notice, review and comment prior to
. the completion of the Plan.
'lEx. :z~
-8-
City Council July 12, 1988
Consistent with the requirement of the Ministry of the
Environment, and to be described in the Part II Plan, the
Zoning By-law will be the subject of holding symbols under
Section 35 of the Planning Act, which will only be removed
when the environmental remediation program in the given area
has been approved by the Minist~y of the Environment.
The final level of municipal review will occur through the
Development Review/Site Plan Control provisions of Section 40
of the Planning Act. This process will be used to ensure that
the final arrangement of buildings and green space is
consistent with the City's environmental and urban design
objectives for the area.
Within this broadly defined planning framework, issues related
to the residential development must be addressed. These
include the desirable mix of unit types based on demographic
projections, the identification of appropriate development
parcels within the larger plan, and of the required community
services and facilities.
The oest means of allocating development parcels to producers
of both affordable and private market housing must be
identified. This will be in accordance with the model
recently presented to City Council by the Liaison Committee.
The original St. Lawrence Neighbourhood is widely seen to be a
successful community both socially and physically. The
identification of its strengths and weaknesses will be useful
in developing this next generation of inner-city
neighbourhoods - St. Lawrence Square.
A detailed design of the services and utilities infrastructure
must also be produced in consultation with the appropriate
City and Metro Departments and the utility companies.
-9- eX. ;>cr
City Council July 12, 1988
The impact of traffic and transportation requirements of the
new community on existing, adjacent neighbourhoods and vice-
versa will require careful consideration.
6. NEXT STEPS
Provided that City Council commits itself to proceeding in
partnership with the Province to move forward on the proposed
St. Lawrence Square development, and instructs the City
Solicitor accordingly, the next major step is for Council to
instruct the appropriate Commissioners to report on the work
program required to give effect to the concept.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That City Council indicate initial acceptance by the
Corporation of the City of Toronto of the Preliminary
Concept Plan and Proposal referred to in this report as
"St. Lawrence Square-.
2. That the Commissioners of Housing, Property, Planning and
Development and Finance report to the July 27, 1988
meeting of the Executive Committee with detailed work
programs to give effect to City Council's commitment
referred to in Recommendation 1.
u~Lo-v-.
-------------
Commissioner of Planning d Development
---~ ----- ------------------
Commissioner of Finance
:as
~~.30
--
THE METROPOLITAN TORORTO AND REGIOR CONSERVATIOR AUTHORITY
STATUS REPORT
OR
HAZARD ARD CORSERVATION LAND ACQUISITION PROJECT
FOR THE MURICIPALITY OF.IlE'.rROPOLITAII TORORTO
October 1988
.
E.)(.31
STATUS REPORT
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Conservation
and Hazard Land Acquisition Project, 1985 - 1989
August 23, 1988
The Metro Hazard Land Project was approved by the Authority,
the Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Provincial Ministry
of Natural Resources in 1985,
Acquisitions to Date:
1986 Ontario Land Corporation -
276.176 acres of flood plain and valley land
in the northeast section of the City of
Scarborough in the Rouge River Watershed, $ 828,102
1987 Bathurst Manor Day Camp and Swim Club Ltd. -
16.629 acres of flood plain and valley land
in the City of North York in the Don River
Watershed, 3.500,000
1988 Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital
(Province of Ontario) -
33.044 acres of Lake Ontario Waterfront
in the City of Etobicoke. 10,739,300
Ontario Land Corporation -
0.09 acres of flood plain land in the City
of Scarborough in the Rouge River Watershed. 225
Sub Total $15,067,627
'€ '/.. "3:2- r,
- ..:. -
Expropriat.ions:
1985 Hinder Estat.e -
30 acres of flood plain and valley land
in the City of North York in the Don
River Watershed:
Payment. based on appraised value; hearing
on compensation to be held October 31, 1988. $ 2,500.000
1987 Toronto Brick Property -
42,69 acres of valley and flood plain in the
Borough of East York in the Don River
Watershed:
Payment based on appraised value; total owed
under review. 4.126.479
Sub Total $ 6,626,479
1985- Legal, Consultant, Survey Costs
88 Associated with Land Acquisit.ions 1, 276,438
Tot.al Expenditure t.o July 31, 1988 $22.970.544
Toronto Brick O.M.B. Decision:
August 17, 1988, the O.M.B. decision on compensation
for Toronto Brick expropriation:
Total Award $16,150,000.
Less: Payment 4.126.479.
Balance Owing 12,023,521.
Interest. from July 10, 1987 781,528.
Estimated Claimant's Costs 750.000.
Sub Total $13,555,049
Total Project Expenditures
(if O.M.B, decision upheld).
to August 17, 1988 $36.525.593
E:"~ .3.3
- 3 -
Uncompleted Propertv ACQuisitions:
The following properties were identified in the
1985 project approval as being suitable for
acquisition. Cost is based on 1985 appraisals.
Lower Don Valley
- Bates Chemical
- Domtar
West Don Sheppard to Finch
- St, Bernards
- York Cemetery
- Hindley Settlement, if necessary
West Don Bayview to Yonge
- Jolly Miller
- Toronto French School (partial)
- Granite Club (partial)
East Don at Highway #401
- Greenwin Development
Humber River at Weston Road
- St. Basils
Sub Total $17,000,000
-
~~ · ~4-
EXPENDITURE/FUNDING CONTINUITY
AS AT AUGUST 17, 1988
($000'8)
FUNDING
EXPENDITURE PROVINCE METRO
----------- -------- --------
$ $ $
To December 31, 1987 11,80,5.0 4,742.0 7,063.0
To August 17, 1988 11,165.6 10,739.5 426.1
---------- -------- --------
22,970.6 15,481.5 7,489.1
---------- -------- --------
Torvalley (if necessary) 13,555.0
Balance of Project* 11,474.4
----------
25,029.4 8,518.5 16,510,9
---------- -------- --------
48,000.0 24,000,0 24,000,0
---------- -------- --------
---------- -------- --------
* Estimated cost of remaining properties likely to be about
$17,000,000.
Eo 'J(.. 3 '0
TBE ME'l'ROPOLITAR TORONTO ARD REGIOR CORSBRVATIOH AUTBORITY
REVIn OP TBE CORSERVATIOR AUTBORI'l'IES PROGRAM
November, 1988
6:.".,:)-
RECOMMENDATIONS AND M.T.R.C.A. COMMENTS
Recommendation #1
THAT Conservation Authorities should continue to operate on a
watershed basis with strong local initiative and the sharing of
project costs between the Province and the member municipalities.
COMMENT: Agreed. This affirms the present situation.
Recommendation #2
THAT once specific responsibilities have been assigned to C.A.s,
individual C.A,s cannot decide to opt in or out of various
programs or components thereof,
COMMENT: Support for this recommendation would depend on
which new responsibilities were being assigned and
whether accompanying new funding was to be
provided. Since C,A, programs depend on
watershed resource management needs. there should
be differences between C,A,s in terms of which
programs they adopt.
Recommendation #3
THAT the number of C.A,s in Southern Ontario should be reduced
from 33 to approximately 18 through amalgamation, This reduction
in the number of C.A,s should occur within two years of the
adoption of this Report by the Province.
COMMRNT: While this does not directly affect the
M,T.R,C,A, . it may free up Provincial funds which
were previously needed as "supplementary" by the
smaller authorities.
Recommendation #4
THAT the specific responsibilities of Conservation Authorities
should be as follows:
Water Mana~ement Pro~ram
Recommendation #4(a)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for all aspects of flood control
to protect lives and prevent property damage in both
riverine locations and lakeshore areas including the Great
Lakes.
COMMRNT: Affirms and clarifies present
responsibilities of M.T.R.C.A.
Recommendation #4(b)
THAT C,A,s be responsible for all aspects of erosion
control to protect lives and prevent property damage in both
riverine locations and lakeshore areas including the Great
Lakes.
COMMENT: Affirms present responsibilities of
M.T,R,C.A.
Recommendation #4(c)
THAT C.A,s not be responsible for point pollution (i.e.
sewage treatment facilities, discharges from industrial
plants. etc.) .
COMMRNT: Agreed. M.T.R,C,A. currently not responsible
for these activities.
I.~.~'
Recommendation #4(d)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for non-point
pollution (i. e. surface runoff from primarily agricultural
and urbanized areas).
COMMENT: Support would depend on the definition of
"limited". M.T.R.C.A. currently is involved
in both sediment control and extension
services (eg. tree and shrub planting,
fisheries habitat improvement) which
contribute to "non-point" control.
Recommendation #4(e)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for low flow augmentation.
COMMENT: This is currently a part of dam operation,
Additional future requirements have not been
identified and would require funding.
Recommendation 14(f)
THAT C.A.s not be responsible for water taking permits.
COMMRNT: This reflects the current situation in
M.T,R,C,A, area, If we are to be responsible
for low flow augmentation. we should have
some role in water taking permits,
Recommendation 14(~)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for urban
drainage.
COMMRNT: Agree insofar as implementation of related
works and facilities are concerned,
M.T,R.C,A. currently provides a watershed
perspective for drainage planning and this
should continue. A better definition of
"11mi ted" is required.
Recommendation 14(h)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for rural
drainage.
COMMENT: Response depends on the definition of
"11mi ted" . Our work in extension programs
and sediment control is related to rural
drainage.
Recommendation 14(i)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for wetlands that act as
significant natural flood storage and flow augmentation
areas,
COMMRNT: M.T.R.C.A. has identified E.S,A.s, We would
have to clarify the definition of "wetlands"
and the relationship of these lands to
E.S.A.s, The nature of our responsibility
and the mechanisms we are to use for wetland
protection need to be clarified,
Recommendation 14(1)
THAT C,A.s be responsible for collecting water samples for
the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network.
E.)(.'!>8
COMMENT: This is the current practice in M.T.R.C.A.
area. There should be funds made available,
through M. 0 . E. . to share in this activity.
Recommendation #4(k)
THAT C,A,s have limited responsibilities for water supply.
COMMENT: This reflects. the current situation in
M.T.R,C.A. area,
Outdoor Recreation Pro~ram
Recommendation #4(1)
THAT C.A,s not be responsible for provincially significant
parks.
COMMENT: This should not change the present situation.
however there should be a definition of
"provincially significant parks",
Recommendation #4(m)
THAT C,A,s have limited responsibilities for the Niagara
Escarpment Parks System.
COMMENT: This depends on the definition of "limited".
M.T.R.C.A. is involved in the Niagara
Escarpment Area as a land owner and manager,
At the request of the Province. we have
identified and purchased lands suitable for
acquisition for Niagara Escarpment purposes,
Clarification of any potential change is
required,
Recommendation #4(n)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for regionally significant parks,
COMMENT: M.T.R.C.A. has provided regional and
"interregional" parks for many years and will
continue to do so.
Recommendation #4(0)
THAT C.A.s not be responsible for locally significant
parks.
COMMRNT: Agree that we should not be providing this
level of program. We should clarify whether
this has any impact on our ability to enter
into agreements with local municipalities for
their development and management of
facilities on our land.
Recommendation #4(~)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for heritage
conservation.
COMMENT: The M.T.R.C,A. program at Black Creek Pioneer
Village is supported by user fees, municipal
levies and a grant from the Ministry of
Culture and Communications. The text
accompanying this recommendation does not
propose any change to this situation, C.A.s
do have a further responsibility for any
heritage sites which occur on their lands.
,
Ej...~
Recommendation #4(a)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for forest
management.
COMMENT: The definition of "limited" needs
clarification. New funding would be required
for the M.T,R.C,A. to assume greater
responsibilities.
Recommendation #4(r)
THAT C.A,s have limited responsibilities for fish and
wildlife management.
COMMENT: While the word "limited" should be clarified.
no major change in the current situation is
anticipated,
Recommendation #4(8)
THAT C.A,s have limited responsibilities for soil erosion
and sediment control.
COMMENT: This applies to agricultural lands and
municipal drains. See comments re #4(d) and
#4(h) .
Recommendation #4(t)
THAT C,A,s have limited responsibilities for wetlands that
protect significant areas of flora and fauna,
COMMRNT: See also comment re #4(i). Wetlands with
water management functions may also be
important for significant flora and fauna.
This recommendation needs further
clarification.
Recommendation #4(u)
THAT C,A.s have limited responsibilities for areas of
natural and scientific interest (A.N.S,I,'s) as well as
significant areas of Carolinian flora and fauna.
COMMRNT: Where these areas are also M,T,R.C.A.
designated E.S,A,s. we would be concerned.
Again, a definition of "limited" in this
context is required.
Recommendation #4Cvl
THAT C,A.s not be responsible for any aspect of waste
management.
COMMENT: While authorities should not be operating
waste management facilities. we are involved
as a commenting and review agency with
respect to the location of proposed sites and
do not want to abandon or be deleted from
this process,
Recommendation #4Cwl
THAT a.A.s have limited responsibilities for conservation
education.
COMMENT: This refers specifically to schools.
Authorities do have a responsibility for
working with school boards and for providing
,
..)(.40
conservation education to not only school
groups, but also to the public. Define
"limi ted" in this instance.
Recommendation #((x)
THAT C.A,s be responsible for providing information to the
public on specific natural resource management programs.
COMMENT: M.T.R.C.A, currently implements such a
program, as well as providing a broad range
of information regarding public safety,
public recreation opportunities, watershed
management and Authority organization and
management.
Recommendation #5
THAT the five (5) C.A,s in Northern Ontario be retained as
distinct, separate units. The boundaries of some of these C.A.s
should be adjusted to concentrate their attention and effort on
the organized municipalities and hence privately-owned property
in the local area.
COMMENT: While this recommendation does not directly affect
M.T.R.C.A, , it is not consistent with
Recommendation #1,
Recommendation #8
THAT the membership of C.A,s be reduced from 937 to
approximately 337, The municipal members will be appointed by
the Regional Municipalities, Restructured County of Oxford,
Counties (in conjunction with Separated Towns and Townships) and
Cities.
COMMENT: While this recommendation would have the effect of
increasing M.T.R.C.A. membership - contrary to its
objective - a footnote identifies that M,T,R.C.A.
will continue to use its current representation.
Recommendation #7
THAT C,A,s should levy the local share of costs on the Regional
Municipalities, Restructured County of Oxford, Counties, Cities,
Separated Towns and Townships.
COMMENT: This is an administrative change to consistently
levy the upper tier municipality rather than
directly to some local Municipalities. It would
affect M.T.R.C.A. in the case of Mono and Adjala
and only insofar as where the levy letter was
sent. Presumably, the upper tier municipality
would pass along the responsibility for costs to
the local level.
Recommendation #8
THAT supplementary grants should be eliminated and regular grants
of 40%, 50% or 70% should be provided for all programs of a C.A.
The applicable grant rate for each C.A. would be a function of
the total assessment and populaton in its watershed(s).
COMMENT: This recommendation is totally unacceptable to the
Authority. M.T.R.C.A. would be the only Authority
in the Province receiving a 40% grant, all others
would receive at least 50%. Based on our 1988
budget, reducing the existing grant rates (50-55%)
to 40% would shift to the municipalities, an
additional $736,509.00, an increase of 11.6% in
operating costs, and $694,339.00, an increase of
22.2% in capital costs.
E~' ~ \
From a provincial perspective. the costs to the
Province for M.T.R.C.A, would be reduced by
approximately 25%.
It is the Authority's position that a stronger.
not a weaker, provincial financial presence is
required in the area of the Province where 1/3 of
the population lives and 95% of the economic
growth takes place. It is these two factors that
are placing a strain on the resource base which
the Authority manages and create the need for
enhanced conservation effort.
Member municipalities should join with the
Authority in petitioning the government of Ontario
to not only maintain the minimum grant rate at
50%, but increase the volume of the funding
available to enable the Province to meet its
commitments,
Recommendation .9
THAT the $5 million in funding freed up through the changes to
the grant rates should remain in the program and the total grant
allocation be increased by an additional $5 million to meet the
funding requirements of C.A.s.
COMMRNT: This recommendation sounds positive and promising,
Certainly any "freed-up" funds should stay in the
program and new funds be added, We have some
concerns as to where they may be "freed-up" from
and subsequently allocated to.
The above-noted comments have been reviewed with other
Conservation Authorities in the Central Region and with the
Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. The A.C.A,O,
has prepared a brief dealing with the ambiguities which our staff
review identified in the report and making firm recommendations
to the Minister with respect to the Burger Repo~t
recommendations.
In summary. the A.C,A.O. brief recommends that the term
"shared" be used in place of the word "limited" when dealing with
responsibilities which are shared among various agencies and
affirms this Authority's belief that a complete package of water
management tools should be assigned to Conservation Authorities
in order that they can properly pursue a mandate of integrated
resource management on a watershed basis.
The final version of the A.C.A.O. brief was not available at
the time of preparing this agenda. However, excerpts from the
draft A.C.A.O. response are included in this report in order that
the Executive Committee can be aware of the tone and stance of
the A,C.A.O. with respect to the major issues, Staff has
concluded that the A,C,A.O. brief represents an appropriate
position for Authorities to take and are recommending the
endorsement of the A.C.A.O, brief by The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority.
E.x. . ~1-
EXCERPTS FROM DRAFT OF ACAO RESPONSE
ACAO believes "A Review of the Conservation Authorities
Program" is a good start in dealing with a wide range of complex
issues. While many areas require more definition, the report
provides a good basis for negotiations to commence among the
Conservation Authorities, municipalities and the various
Provincial agencies. The main criticism ACAO has of the report
is that it doesn't go far enough in addressing certain
fundamental issues.
l. Is the Province prepared over a reasonable period of
time to make Conservation Authorities responsible for
truly integrated resource management on the watershed
under their jurisdiction? In many areas, the report
perpetuates the current fragmented system and
subsequent lack of accountability.
2, Is the Province prepared to designate Conservation
Authorities as the lead agency for coordinating and
delivering private and extension programs in Ontario?
3. Is the Province prepared to rationalize program
delivery by Conservation Authorities vis a vis the
field offices of Natural Resources, Environment and
Agriculture and Food?
ACAO believes the answers to the above three questions can
only come from the Cabinet,
ACAO believes that within the context of the foregoing
questions, negotiations should commence as soon as possible on a
program by program basis among ACAO, AMO and the Province to
finalize the following matters in the order listed.
l. The mandate of the Conservation Authorities,
2. The funding levels and grant rates necessary to
properly implement that mandate.
3, The administrative and organizational structures - both
Conservation Authority and Province - necessary to
properly implement that mandate. As a final
recommendation, ACAO recommends Cabinet appoint an
independent commissioner/commission with the following
responsibilities:
(i) recommendation to Cabinet regarding what items
should be subject to n~gotiation;
(ii) responsibility to Cabinet for insuring the
negotiations take place and the inevitable
differences of opinion are arbitrated.
ACAO Draf~ ResoonRe ~o Soecific Recommenda~ions:
(Refer to previous attachment giving M,T,R.C.A, staff
comment for the recommendation of the review)
Recommenda~ion .1
Complete agreement. The term "project costs" should be
contracted to read only "costs". There is a lot more to
Conservation Authorities - administration, program support,
operations and maintenance - than just projects,
Recommenda~ion .4(8\
ACAO is in general agreement with this recommendation
subject to the following qualifiers:
:i- · '" ~
e,
(1) Con6erva~ion Authorities should be designated as
the lead agency for flood protection works along the
Great Lakes shoreline once provincial and federal
negotiations on the program are completed;
(ii ) the Province will continue to be responsible for
declaring a flood emergency and the Municipalities
will continue to be responsible for flood emergency
measureSj
(iii) the term "responsible" be replaced by "the lead
agency" .
Recommend8~ion 14(bl
ACAO is in general agreement with this recommendation
subject to the following qualifiers:
(i) the recommendation should be expanded to include all
erosion control programs - rural and urban. surface
and riverine and lakeshorej
(11 ) the term "responsible" be replaced by "the lead
agency" ;
(iii) Conservation Authorities should be designated as the
lead agency for erosion protection works along the
Great Lakes shoreline once provincial and federal
negotiations on the program are completed.
Recommenda~ion 14(il
ACAO cannot accept this Recommendation nor that of 14(t)
when they are read together. Wetlands are resource
management units and their function for flood storage and
flow augmentation cannot be separated from their
significance for flora and fauna. ACAO would be agreeable
to a revision and combination of recommendations 14(i) and
14(t) which would read:
"That Conservation Authorities be the lead agency for
acquisition. protection and management of wetlands in
Ontario, exclusive of Crown Lands",
Recommend8~ion 14(nl
Agreed, subject to some consensus on what constitutes a
"regionally significant park", The report fails to draw the
distinction between parks and conservation areas, the
latter of which may have a host of other resource
management objectives besides recreation.
Recommenda~ion 14(ol
ACAO cannot support the recommendation in its present form
as it would seriously fragment the private land forestry
program in Ontario. ACAO believes the Province should make
a committment that Conservation Authorities, subject to
satisfactory negotiation and a reasonable time frame, will
be responsible for all forest management on private,
municipal and Conservation Authorities' lands in Ontario,
within their jurisdiction.
Recommenda~ion 18
ACAO cannot accept the proposed grant formula for the
following reasons:
(i) the rationale for adopting this system is no better
than that used to reject options (iii) and (iv)j
e.~..."y.
( ii) it does not address the issue oi the northern
Conservation Authorities having to implement programs
in unorganized municipalities;
( 11i) it discriminates against the Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority.
ACAO believes the Province, AMO and ACAO should negotiate a
grant system which reflects certain basic principles.
1- A minimum provincial grant of 50% for qualifying
programs.
2. Provincial grant levels that reflect the benefit
received by the Province from having the program
implemented at the local level.
3. A supplementary grant formula that recognizes ability
to pay,
The present system should remain in place until an
acceptable replacement has been designed.
Recommendation .9
ACAO agrees that any funding - provincial or municipal -
freed up through changes in the grant rates should remain
in the program. ACAO strongly supports the addition of new
provincial funds to the program but notes that the amount
required will be determined by the following factors:
( i) the mandate assigned to Conservation Authorities;
( 11) the provincial grant rates established for each
program in that mandate;
(iii) the existing shortfall in provincial funding.