HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance and Business Development Advisory Board Appendices 1997
~ FrO l/q1
Vthe metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
1997 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET .
AND
1997 -1999
BUSINESS PLAN
AS APPROVED BY
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Authority Meeting #2/97. April 4. 1997
\
I Working Together for Tomorrows Greenspace I
h
1997 BUDGET, OPERATING AND CAPITAL r(j~/q7
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS
Overview
In 1996, the Authority approved the 1997-1999 Business Plan which set out a comprehensive, long
range view of the Authority's businesses. The Business Plan defined fifteen business components
covering all aspects of our work and setting out three year target for revenue and expenditures,
performance and operations.
In creating the Business Plan, the Authority is assuring its funding partners that we can:
. deliver the services and programs to met the needs and expectations of all watershed
residents:
. make the best possible use of limited financial and human resources, and
. preserve, protect and enhance our public assets.
Key Assumptions and Principles
The Business Plan as approved in October, 1996, was based on key assumptions and principles
which are reflected in the 1997 Budget
. Provincial Grant reduction will be no more than $900,000
. Planned fee increases are approved by the Authority
. The Regions of Peel, York and Durham "flat line" Authority funding 1997 through 1999
. Asset management costs including conservation areas and Black Creek Pioneer Village are
funded through municipal levy
. Metro Council approves the three year plan
. Recreation and Black Creek Pioneer Village Programming is self-supporting in three years
through revenue generating activities.
1997 Budget, Operating and Capital
The 1997 Budget reflects our commitment to the assumptions and principles agreed to as part of the
Business Plan approval process. Most important, the 1997 Budget is based on the Authority's
commitment to meet the budget targets of our municipal funding partners. We have consulted with all
of our municipal funding partners and, where appropriate, worked in cooperation with other GTA
conservation authorities in making our representations.
The 1997 Budget demonstrates our commitment to maintaining important watershed programs. We
have replaced lost tax revenue wherever possible. We have eliminated inefficient and unnecessary
expenditures and increased expenditures where it prudent to do so to increase revenues and enhance
services.
Our business component funding targets have changed as we have worked through the detailed
implementation process but the bottom line ~e pre~icted in the pr~liminary estimates has been
achieved.
We will continue to work to refine the Business Plan and in the fall of 1997 will present a revised 1998-
2000 Business Plan incorporating our original principles and reflecting the experience we will have
gained in 1997.
'F6 'b/~ 7
COMPARISON OF REVENUE SOURCES 1993 .1999 ASSUMING
IMPLEMENTATION OF 1997 . 1999 BUSINESS PLAN
I 1993 I
$3,583 (11,1%) GRANT
St,14O (42."') REVENUE
I 1996 I
$1,701 (1.1%) GRANT
$10,214 (52.0%) REVENUE.--J
I 1999 I
$1,117 (.UI") LEVY
$12,511 (11.7%) REVENUE
~
, the metropolitan tcronto and region conservation authority
.
Ft3 ~/q
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I Page
1997 Budget 1
1997 Municipal Levy
Operating and Capital Comments 3
Basis of Apportionment Municipal Levy 1997 6
Apportionment of 1997 Levies 8
Organization Chart 10
Complement 11
1997 - 1999 Business Plan Financila Summary 12
SECTION II
1997 - 1999 Business Plan
.. .
F(35/'t7 _
SECTION I
..
- . ... .
.. '" .- .......... .....-....__.........~. _ ""-- ....... -...... .
METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVA nON AUTHORITY Pagl 1
1997 BUDGET. OPERA nNG & CAPITAL (WITH 1998 COMPARA J1\IES) IN BUSINESS PLAN FORMA T
OPERATING 1888 Budaet 1887 Budaet
BUSINESS COMPONENTS a_ .......... otItW Hef, levyl Gm.. Pro,,.,,. aliter Net: I.IV)'f 171M
a ACTMTIES &>>MllllwM R.wn.. SolnM a_t Emend/tu,.. Revenue Souree. Gren' Nit Chanal
. . . . $ $ $ $ $
WA TERSHED HEAL TII
WATERSHED PLANNING
1) Waterahed Strategle. 110,100 200,000 4110,100 874.400 33'.000 '31,400 41,300
2) Reaource MonHoong 774,100 eo,ooo 724,100 881,300 10.000 13'.100 '8.0..00 (44.000
3) Education:
a) Con_tlon FIeld Centr.. 1,117,400 1,131,300 lN,l00 1,778,800 1,711,700 (10,100 (188.200
b) Kortrlght Centre 1.268,100 l38,llOO 101,000 1114,llOO 1.131,'00 70'.800 101.000 322.000 (112,100
4) Flood Warning 2M 000 71 300 2011,700 278 400 278 400 71 700
4 "7 100 2 1120 200 3lI4 300 2 092 600 4 131100 2-1411.100 .71 100 1.110 .00 '2'2.100
LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES
5) AdvIsory I Technical Clearance 101,700 lIOlI,7llO 842,'00 18',000 477.100 (13.,100
b) PermHtlngICompllance monHorlng 741000 200,000 1141 000 701.800 200.000 101 800 ' 13UOO
1 348 700 200 000 1 1411 700 1.312..100 38'.000 117 AOO 1112 300
REOEHERATION
6) Project Dealgn & Implementation 1 lU 100 441.400 4\0 lIOO 337 700 1,110.100 401.400 310 .00 310.700 127,000
l\UIillO 44\ 400 410 lIOO 337 700 1110100 401.400 310 800 310 700 127 000 .
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS
Land Management
I) Property ServJcea UOO,OOO UOO,OOO 1,277,800 1,277.800 (22,400
9) CA Land Management IOll,OOO lIOO,OOO 801.700 101.700 1.700
10) Water Management Structur81 145,lIOO 145,lIOO 12'.100 12'.100 (18,100
11) BCPV Infra.lructure '711,000 '711,000 171,000 '71.000
12) Bu.ln.... Developmenl 708 700 \120 000 144 7001 t38llllOO 710 300 1.1181100 1471.200 '112 100
3 121,200 \120 000 144 7001 2 lI53 llOO 3 180 100 1.181.100 2..101.000 1112.100
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE
13) Recreation ProgrlllT1l 2,1411,llOO \ ,183,300 l13,lIOO 2,884.200 2.213.800 470,400 ('13,200
14) BCPV Program. 3 143 400 2 271 200 7411 200 124 000 3.107100 2 840,300 301 000 1.2.100 38.800
IIlll10300 4 134l1OO 741200 1 107 lIOO 1.712.100 4,8114,100 3011.000 833,000 1474.100
Vehlct. & Equipment Re.eMl (Nel) 88,100 88 .00 0
14) CORPORATE SER\lrCES
a)Manage~ISe~. lMlO,2llO lMlO,2llO 482.700 4'2.700 (77.100
b) Corporale Secrelarlal 202,450 202,4~ 188,100 1'8,100 (14,310
c) Development OIIIce 231.100 218,100 1'.800 1'.100
d) Communication. 33I,lIOO 33I,lIOO 347.100 347,100 11.000
e) Human Reaourcea I Safely 227,lllIO 227,050 247.200 30,000 217,200 (....0
I) Office Services 13\,300 1131,300 121,400 121,400 (11,100
II) Informallon Technology 2011,700 2011,700 278.200 271.200 ....00
I h) Financial SeMce' lI08 700 350 000 \51 700 498,100 310 000 148 800 111.100 1'1
2lI72,llOO 350 000 2 222 llOO 2.801.200 3liO 000 241.800 UOUOO '18.800 CN
ICorporale ServJcea: 'lI. oITolal Budgel ilK 11ft 7.K \211~
~
\I nl 100 . 7M 100 1 411 300 8 414 400 11 8119 1100 1.7,13 1100 1101 100 . 34. 100 11.117 .00 -.......
IOPERATING TOTAL 1.701,000 138,000 (7111.000 -0
MNR Tranafer Payment
II1I ,,:1' " I ~" ._ 7 763 400 fA10100 (3112,100 ~
'a.a2
METROPOUTAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVAnON AUTHORITY AUTHORITY
1.17 . 118. BUSINESS PLAN FINANCIAL SUMMARY (WITH 1IN COMPARA TlVES) l\
tj:)
CAPITAL 1998 Budaet 1117 PreliminarY Estimates -..J
..........
BUSINESS COMI'ONEHTS 0..... P,..",., Olllw Net: I.wyI Gmu Program 0"- Net: Lev)t' 17111 -S)
& ACTIVITIES R_ ........ ~ 2JaIendIu.. ft._ sOW'C.. GnIIII Nat Chanaa
. . . . . . . . . ...j
WATERSHED PLANNING
1) Waterahed strategies ( Waterfront) 100,000 75,000 25,000 100,000 100.000 7',000
2) Rescuce M~ (Waterfront) 170,000 170,000 111,000 111,000 (1',000
IlEGEHERATION
6) Regeneration CIpftaI Projeda 12,7M,IOO 1,272,000 3,482,000 _.040,100 1',312,100 1,410,000 1,231,300 1,117.200 117,100
7) Land Acqulslllonl & DllpoaaJa 1.150,000 _,000,000 150,000 100,000 3,900,000 2,100,000 1,400,000 (100,000
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE
PublIc Ute Infraltructure Pnljecta 340,000 170,000 170,000 131,000 217,100 217,100 17,'00
AdmInIatralille 0lIIce 450 000 450,000 110,000 110,000
CAPITAL TOTAL 23504 100 U92.OOO 4 407 000 . 205 100 20 171 100 .. 100 000 1 102-00 . 171 700 l2UIIO
Page 3
1997 MUNICIPAL LEVY
.
The municipal share of expenditures included In the 1997 Operating Budget comprises the General Levy on the member municipalities. Non-
recreation expenditures are apportioned on the basis of discounted equalized assessment, with the necessary adjustments to bring the levy In
at the amount approved by each participating member, Recreation expenditures are apportioned to the municipalities on the basis of visitor
origin and discounted equalized assessment, as described below. Assessment data Is supplied by the Province of Ontario, through the Ministry
of Natural Resources.
As required by the Cc)nservatlon Authorities Act, the levy attributable to administration costs Is distributed on the basis of discounted equalized
assessment, Further, regulations require an Authority to levy an amount equal to the level of provincial grant allocations, known as the
"matching levy", As of March 25, 1997 the Province had not announced the 1997 grants to conservation authorities, The budget assumes
these grants will total $936,000 and, therefore, the matching levy has been tentatively set at this amount,
The Regional Municipalities of Durham, Peel and York are also levied an amount equal to 100 % of the 1996 taxes paid by the Authority on
revenue-producing properties within these municipalities, Within Metropolitan Toronto, Authority lands are not subject to taxation and
consequently, no tax adjustment is made,
Funding Arrangements for Municipal Levy on Recreational Programs
In 1988, the Authorlt~ approved a new arrangement to distribute the municipal recreation levy among the four major member municipalities,
This arrangement affects the municipal levy for the development, operation and maintenance of Conservation Areas, Black Creek Pioneer
Village and the Kortright Centre for Conservation, The arrangement makes use of the traditional measure of ability to pay, discounted
equalized assessment, and introduces a new measure of usage which is indicated by visitor origin statistics. The respective municipal shares
have been frozen at the agreed levels since 1993, and are recommended to continue at these levels until 1999,
As a result of the 1997 _ 1999 Business Plan process begun in 1996, the Authority has undertaken to to effectively eliminate the levy for
recreation programs by the year 1999, rendering the recreation formula obsolete,
~
O(J
-......
-J)
~
'\
~
Page 4 ...c
1997 MUNICIPAL LEVY - CAPITAL --
-t:)
The municipal share of expenditures on Authority capital projects is financed as a Capital levy on member municipalities as designated In ....j
specific projects, The municipalities individually determine whether they will raise the levy from capital or current funds and to what extent
the levy is raised from a local municipality, Projects which require municipal levy are described below:
Greenlpace Protection and Acquisition Project, 1996 - 2000
.
This project is the continuation of the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project, 1993 - 1995, In 1995, the Authority approved a 6-year
$1,500,000, ($300,000 annually) project, Municipal funding Is apportioned on the basis of Metro Toronto at 50%, with the balance shared by
Peel, York and Durham, using Discounted Equalized Assessment based pro rata shares, In view of the fiscal environment, no municipal funding
is being sought in 1996 and the $2,000,000 budgeted expenditure will be funded from land sale revenues and other non levy sources.
Lake Ontario Waterfrbnt Regeneration Project In the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1995 - 1999
This project was adopted by the Authority In 1994 at an annual spending level of $4,000,000 with total project expenditures planned at
$20,000,000 over the five-year life of the project. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Metropolitan Toronto, the benefitting municipality,
have approved the project, Recent announcements from the Province have confirmed that it will not continue its financial participation, In
1996, Metropolitan Toronto agreed to continue funding the project, Expenditures of approximately $2,7 million have been budgeted for 1997,
but may be exceeded to the extent staff are successful in accessing grants from other provincial and federal programs,
.
Project for Valley and Shoreline Regeneration In the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1997 - 2001
I
The 1997 - 2001 Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project consolidates all similar remedial works on the waterfront and river valleys, The
Authority will be asked to adopt the project in 1997 at a gross expenditure level of $1,200,000 (excluding amounts spent from provincial
grants and other non levy sources) for each of the 5 years and to designate Metropolitan Toronto as the benefitting municipality, Provincial
funding of $325,000 appears attainable and has been budgeted in 1997,
Public Use Infrastructure Project, 1997
The 1997 budget provides $335,000 for conservation area, heritage and education development projects, The municipal share, set at 60%,
has been provided for in the levy,
Metro Toronto Trail Linkage at Clalreville Project, 1997
Metropolitan Toronto has approved, as part of its 1997 Capital Estimates process, an amount of $100,000, or 50% of the cost of a 2,1
kilometre trail link in the vicinity of the Claireville Dam, Approvals are pending,
1997 MUNICIPAL LEVY - CAPITAL CONT'D.., ' Page 6
l
Project for Etoblcoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park (Revised March 1993'
The Etoblcoke SeconCtary Plan was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1992, The OMB decision, which was ratified by Cabinet,
named the Authority as the .Implementing agency. for the public amenities scheme, The OMB and Cabinet also ordered that there be a more
equitable sharing of costs on the basis of the regional significance of the project, Following the OMB decision, staff proposed amendments to
the original project, Phase 1 of the amended project requires funding of $8,350,000 for land acquisition, master planning, fill and shoreline
protection and for the fish compensation plan, The public amenity scheme was commenced in 1996 and Is scheduled for completion In 1988,
although the timing and amount of payments under expropriation proceedings are still to be determined. The funding formula, under the
project, requires equal sharing of costs by the Province, City of Etobicoke and the Authority. The Authority's share is funded equally by the
Province of Ontario ahd Metropolitan Toronto, In 1997, $2,100,000 is budgeted,
Project for the Acquliitlon of the Canada Post Property
,
.
The project requires total funding of $18,000,000 which has been raised on the following basis:
.
. 50% Province of Ontario ($9,000,000'
. 25% Metropolitan Toronto ($4,500,000'
. 25 % Regional Municipality of Peel ($4,500,000'
All of the Provincial funding and some municipal funds have been applied towards the acquisition of the property which wa. completed In
1992, In 1997, the project will be completed and the balance of funding, $2,3 million will be spent on site remediation, In addition, pursuant
to an agreement, a further $2.5 million will be required from Canada Post to complete the remediation plan, bringing the 1997 budget to $4,8
million,
Don Valley Brickwork. Regeneration Project, (Revised 1996'
Having acquired the former brickworks site, the Authority entered Into a management agreement with Metropolitan Toronto In 1989, In 1992,
the Authority adopted a project which provietes for a gradual return of the area to the natural valley ecosystem at a cost of $5,000,000.
Metropolitan Toronto has approved the project, contributing $2,250,000 over the 4 year time frame, The Province, through" Jobs Ontario.
program will contribute an equal amount, The Conservation Foundation of Greater T aronto has agreed to raise the remaining $500,000, and, ~
in fact. has already exceeded this target by a substantial amount, In 1996, the Authority approved a revision to the project which requires a
further contribution by Metro in the amount of $250,000, which amount has been approved by Metropolitan Toronto within its 1997 Capital
Estimates process, In 1997, $2,355,000 is budgeted, recognizing imeased Conservation Foundation revenue of at least $500,000 and other -
amounts from provincial grant programs, C)
~
....Q
--...J
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Page'
BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT - MUNICIPAL LEVY -1887 **
BASED ON THE LATEST DISCOUNTED EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT FIGURES AVAILABLE TO THE AUTHORITY ~
MUNICIPALITY DISCOUNTED %OF DISCOUNTED TOTAL POPULATION
-
EQUALIZED MUNICIPALITY EQUALIZED POPULATION IN -
ASSESSMENT IN AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ~
IN WATERSHED -..J
$ (ODD's) $(OOO's)
Township of AdJala-TolOrontlo 285,557 4 11,422 8,898 358
Durham, Regional Municipality of 8,217,810 . 5,188,322 144,259 120,598
Metropolitan Toronto 139,339,660 100 139,339,660 2,183,855 2,183,655
Mono Township 322,788 5 16,139 5,980 299
Peel, Regional Municipality of 48,454,236 . 20,392.155 753,118 327,482
York, Regional Municipality of 37,072,522 . 33,389,812 419,540 369,733
231,692.574 198.335.311 3,515,448 3.002.123
ANAL VSIS OF REGIONAL MUNICIPALmES ·
Durham, Regional Munlclpanty of
Ajax, Town of 2,329,748 86 2,003,584 58,854 50,814
Pickering, Town of 3,215,799 95 3.055,009 70,733 87,198
Uxbrldge Township 672,283 19 127,730 14,672 2,788
8.217.810 5.186.322 144,259 120.598
Peel, Regional Municipality or 83 8.217,738 238,319 148,881
Brampton, City 13,04',025
Mlsslssauga, City or 33,187,259 33 10,951,796 480,170 158,458
Caledon, Town or 2,222,953 55 1,222,624 38,827 20,145
48,454.236 20,392.155 753.118 327.482
York, Regional Municipality of 4 85,424 30,392 1,218
Aurora, Town or 2,135,601
Markham, Town or 12,879,438 100 12,879,438 151,518 151,518
Richmond HIli, Town or 7,022,340 99 6,952,117 85,970 85,110
Vaughan, Town or 12.245,285 100 12.245,285 116,360 118,360
Whltchurch-Stourtvllle, Town of 1,404.421 43 603,901 17,796 7,652
King Township 1,385,437 45 623.447 17,504 7,877
37.072.522 33.38M.12 419.540 369.733 .
** As provided by the Mi1Istry or Municipal Affairs.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Page 7
1997 LEVY APPORTIONMENT
< ---- GENERAL LEVY >
DISCOUNTED NON- RECREATION -
EQUALIZED RECREATION OPERATION &
MUNICIPALITY ASSESSMENT PROPORTIONATE MAINTENANCE,
IN WATERSHED FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
$COOO's)
ADJALA-TOSORONTlO 11,422 0.00576% 0.00576%
DURHAM
Alax 2,003,584
Pickering 3,055,009
Uxbrldge 127,730
5,186,322 2.81493% 3.19986%
METROPOUTANTORONTO 139,339,660 70.28459% 80.19186%
MONO 16,139 0.00814% 0.00814%
PEEL
Brampton 8,217,736
Misslssauga 10,951,796
Caledon 1,222,624
20,392,155 10.28188% 18.29773%
YORK
Aurora 85,424
Markham 12,879,438
Richmond 6,952,117
Vaughan 12,245,285
Whitchurch - Stouffvllle 603,901
King 623,447 ~
33,389,612 16.83493% 19.79725% -
CU
198.335.311 100.00000% 100.00000% ~
..J
P8ge 8 '\
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ~
APPORTIONMENT OF 1997 LEVIES -
vJ
GENERAL PROGRAMS & CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY """'----
-~
,
'-
< - 1997 GENERAL LEVY --> 1887:: ':,.:.::'1Q81-..:':')::::' 1996 1888
NON- RECREATION- :'::.,':..TOTAI{.'::-:::::: CAPITAL :.:: GR;\NIi.:':'. OPERATING Operating GRAND Grand TobII
RECREATION TAX OPERATIONS & ,." GENERAl.,. PROJECTS TOTAl.;'.=:':" LEVY INCL. Change TOTAL Change
LEVY ADJUST, MAINTENANCE :.: LEVY'" ( Page 8 )' '.' LEVY:.::.:::::: ITAXADJUST. . 97196 LEVY 97196
$ $ $ :'..: $ .... $ .. $ ... $ $ % $ $
r...... :,,:::,: ..,::, ::":;:::'~:': :::: i.::::::':..:;;:::::i::;:.::::;::~~i
..,. ....,.. '" .
..... .. ..
ADJALA-TOSORONTlO 365 36 i:::;}:::::::::::':.:.::;::;::::':::'.~~:; 11 401 412
.. .... . .. . . ...
..... .
. .. i:" : .::;..: ~'3.,;..~t
DURHAM 207,331 57,360 20 253 :::::"::'::"\::2i4'i~':: 53,993 284,944 338,937
· ;::...:'::,:-.::,::..:......:,-':.... ',' ,.: :......, ",
METRO TORONTO 4,206,084 384 178 ,:.., :"'8902.,2':. 5,456,616 :::.: ~o.,~.~.~,~:!~ 4,888,265 (296.003) -6,1% 10,425,496 378,818
. ::........ .,' , '.:' '?'" ','.
:',.:.:',. ...::.:....;.,'...... .;":
MONO 512 52 (::i}.'/:.: ::t(/:::'SS4:j 8 ~~r~~;~, 584 572
. ...
:,',';',' ... ....:.......:...:.... ..':
..... ............ .... '.
PEEL 988,829 83,702 103.164 /.: :::)::.1.'; 1'j.;;9:~'1 27,318 1,175,695 1,353,013 150,000
:::.::....:::.....:..:. ',;: ....:...::
. .. . :' .::13'82,218 (58,497) -4.0%
YORK 1 175 359 58 358 125,317 :,: ":" .1::;59,034.: 33184 . 1 415531 1 448,715 58 497
.... .......... : :". ...... .: .... ... .
.' '. :'. . ..... . '..
6,578.479 199,420 633,000 ::.::.: ::)~:410,jO(f: 5,571,130 . 12'8.2' Q~Q 7,783,400 (352,500) -4,5% 13,567,145 585,115
:::::.:,:!:::"::~i::!:;:;::::';{':1::;:i:::;.::::'::j:::'j ':." .:'::: ::: :::\.:. :::::
lEVIES ON HAND 3,279,570 :.:. :: 321' '570
. . ., ..,
'.' ........ .... ..
: ....,' ..;..,':.... .... ',':;"': ..:.t ...::.............':.:.:::....:.::...
8,578.480 199,420 633000 {.:'::")1:.t-tO'gO(f:; 8,850,700 ':-::1~;l.to.OQ 7,763,400 (352,500) -4,5% 13,587,145 685,115
, ':: :-:.:' '.. ~ . : .... ............
.... .
::"':. .....:.::...::. '.. .. .... ....
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORllY Page 8
APPORTIONMENT OF 1997 CAPITAL PROJECT LEVIES
CANADA WATERFRONT ETOBICOKE VALLEY & REMEDIAL BRICK- PUBLIC
POST REGENERATION MOTEL SHORELINE ACTION WORKS USE INFRA- TRAILS TOTAL
MUNICIPALllY PROPERlY PROJECT STRIP REGENERATION PLANS REGENERATION STRUCTURE PROJECT
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
ADJALA-TOSORONTIO 11 11
DURHAM 48,630 5,363 53,113
METRO -
TORONTO 1,800,000 1,000,000 1.200,000 630,000 625,000 101,616 100,000 5,458,818
(See Note)
MONO 8 8
PEEL 27,318 27,318
YORK 33,184 33,184
. LEVY iNVoicED ". :::.::: ....:. :" ..r:::.:.... ::.:: :.:.:.::::.::::::.:::.:.:: .::\:r:::::::.:.::'?:::':::::::'1:;84818~O:: .:';'::'-1 ~ooo,boq :::::'::.:::=':.:::.:':.-:.::"-1 ;200,000:'\::::::/':': ::" e3~;O~ .:~:}j{::r::'::.d:::=::::::?l,i~~oo~E!!{W:~~:::}::::::~\1'f~$.ji.o.)TTij)ijiqocf(?:.iftfiijp:;
LEVIES
ON HAND 2,300,000 737,370 50,000 192,200 3,278,670
RECEIVABLE
LEvY Bl.)OGJrfi'" :,:- ::: ...: .; :.:.::.: ::.2:300;000'.:.: ..g::,,:;::: :'.:/ ::':'i:t586.000: ::::':1 :050,000':':: ....:.::::...::::::.:..:: 1 ;200.000':': :. ';. ,:,:'" 822~20b :;:) . ..::\: :::,::::/.:::J B25:000MW::.7 (:'>W:161t500 +\'.t100:0QOW tii88O'1 'IDe)':
OTHER FUNDING 2,500,000 1,300,000 35,000 1,070,300 1,350,000 167,500 100,000 7,772,800
PROVINCIAL 1,050,000 325,000 380,000 1,755,000
'TOTAL:COST"::'::. '" : .:-:: ..': 4;800;Ooif/:.::::=:::::': :::?}i:":':'::::3;a86;OOO:'" .::: '2~ 1.(iO,OO~:'(' .... ;:"::,.: 1;560;000' :':' '1,892,500::::'::'" :.::;:.- :. <':::2i355.0D.()):.::':i.:;:: .::"':::: :.::::. 3~5,9Q(F ;).i~qo;OOO 1 ft;~1e;@.'
Note: The Metro figure Includes $700 thousand to be contributed by the City of Etoblcoke.
~
-
...c:.
...........
~
........\
Page 9b
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY "T\
APPORTIONMENT OF 1997 LEVIES ~
-
MATCHING AND NON-MATCHING LEVIES cJ\
.........
..S)
MATCHING NON-MATCHING TOTAL OP. NON-MATCHING: TOTAL -.\
LEVY. OP. LEVY LEVY CAPITAL LEVY LEVY
$ $ $ $ $
ADJALA-TOSORONTIO 54 347 401 11 412
DURHAM 24,476 260.468 284.944 53.993 338.937
METRO TORONTO 657.583 3.932.679 4.590.262 5.456.616 10.046,878
MONO 76 488 564 8 572
PEEL 96,236 1.079,459 1,175.695 27.318 1.203.013
YORK 157,575 1.201,459 1,359,034 33.184 1,392.218
936 000 6.474900 7.410,900 5571.130 12 982.030
· Based on preliminary estimates of provincial funding,
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Page 10
ORGANIZATION CHART
ADVISORY BOARDS THE CONSERVATION
AUTHORITY FOUNDATION OF
Watershed Management GREATER TORONTO
Public U..
Roanc. & Business
Development
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
CHIEF ADMINISTRAllVE OFFICER! DEVELOPMENT
SECRETARY - mEASURER OFFICE
I
DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR,
FINANCE & BUSINESS WATERSHED CORPORATE
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
· Budget & Accounting · Watershed Specialists · Communications
· Buslnus Development · Plan Review · Education 1)
· Property / Asset Management · Environmental Services · Human Resources
· Black Qeek Pioneer Village/ · Resource Science · Corporate and Customer Service eN
Food Service · Conservation Areas -
· Information Systems · Enforcement ~
~
...j
JANUARY 19"7
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1997 Budget Page 11
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
FULL TIME COMPLEMENT '\
~
-
1994 1998 Jan, 1, 1998 leIS Jan, 1, 1997 Le.. ~
Approved Complement Approved Complement Unfunded Vacancle' Unfunded Vacancle. -0
~
CAO's Office 20 2 2 2
Finance and Business 74 61 55 , 50
Development
Watershed Management 133 142 121 119
Corporate Services 27 37 34 34
TOTAL 254 242 212 205
HOURS OF WORK/FULL TIME EOUIV ALENT (FTE)
(Basad on 1900 hours/vaar)
1998 1990
FTE CATEGORY FTE
203 FULL-TIME 236
38 CONTRACT 41
95 SEASONAL 111
42 PART-TIME 43
378 TOTALS 431
Total Raductlon: 53 FTE/13%
'111112
METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVA TlON AUTHORITY
1997.1999 BUSINESS PLAN FINANCIAL SUMMARY (WITH 1991 COMPARATIVES)
OPERATING 1998 Budaet 1997 Budaet 1998 Projected Estimates 1999 Projected Esllmate.
BUSINESS COMPONENTS G..... P...",.". OCher H.': Levyl Gross Program Other Net: l evyl G..... prognm 011,., H.,: l.vyl Gm.. Program O,IIe, H.,: Levyl 18 -II
& ACTIVITIES Rn..... Soc.R.. Gran' Emend/lures Revenue Sources Grant &Dendll... R........ Sourc.. Gran' l:-.ndI"" R.v..... Soc.R.. GIan' CHANGE
. . . . S S S S . . . . . . . . S
WATERSHED HEALTH
WAIEBIHED PLANNING
11 Wate,shed Strategies PO. 100 200.000 490.100 874,400 335,000 539,400 857.900 420,000 1137.800 865.000 385.000 1170.000 79,900
21 Resource Monitoring 774,100 110.000 724.100 889,300 50,000 138,500 880,800 8511.100 50.000 100,000 8Oll.1OO 851.400 110,000 100.000 8Oll.400 83,600
31 Education'
al ConseNlltlon Field Centra 1.1117.400 U31,3OO 158.100 1,778,800 1,788,700 (10,100 1.7311.100 1,788,700 (50.100 1.738.100 1.788.700 (110.100 (206,200)
bl Kortright Centre 1,251.100 838.800 108.000 1114,800 1,138,800 708,800 108,000 322,000 t,154.100 733.000 100.000 301,100 1.154.100 7113,000 100.000 281.100 (223,800)
41 Flood Warning 2115.000 711.300 206.700 278,400 278,400 272,400 272.400 282.400 282.400 75,700
4.8117,100 2.520.200 384.300 2.092,600 4,935.500 2.545.500 579.500 1810500 11.078.100 2.1569 700 620.000 1.870.100 8.096.600 2.8811.700 585.000 1.801,100 -/190 8001
LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES
51 Advisory I Technical aesranee 808.700 608,700 842,800 185,000 477,800 694,800 300.000 314.100 894.800 347.400 347.400 (281,300)
b) PermlttingfComplianca monitoring 741.000 200,000 &41.000 70~.!00 200,000 509,800 737.400 200.000 1137,400 772.200 200,000 ' 1172.200 31 200
1.3411.700 200,000 1.149.700 1 352 400 365 000 887.400 1.432,200 100,000 1132,200 1.467.000 &47.400 8111.100 1230 1001
REGENERATJQU
61 Project Design & Implementation 1.1811.600 441.400 410.600 337,700 1,110800 408 400 3~~10,700 1.084.600 404,700 400.000 278.800 1.0112.600 412.700 400,000 278.800 157,800)
1.1811.600 441.400 410.600 337,700 1,110,900 409 400 390.800 310,700 1.084.600 404.700 400.000 278.800 I,OlI2,600 412.700 400.000 2711.800 157,800)
land Management
81 Property Ser.1ces 1.300.000 1.300.000 1,277,800 1,277,800 1.278,400 1.278,400 1.288.400 1.281,400 (3,600)
91 CA land Management 100.000 IlOO.000 801,700 801,700 llOl,700 101.700 101.700 101.700 1,700
10) WaleI' Management Structures 145,500 145,100 125,800 125,800 1211.800 1211.800 1211.800 1211.800 (111,600)
111 BCPV Infmstructura 1711,000 1711.000 875,000 875,000 178.000 '711.000 176.000 1176.000
121 Buslness Development 708,700 1,120,000 /44,7001 '361,600 710.300 1,1~9 500 (478.200 718.000 1.2lIO.6OO /1174100 722,300 1,395.100 1673.200 1308 6001
3.628.200 1.120,000 /447001 2.1153.800 3.580.500 1,189.500 2.401,000 3,lllI5,ooo t,2I1O,6OO 2.304,llOO 3,621,300 1,385.llOO 2.22llllOO 1328 1(0)
WA TERSHED EXPERIENCE
131 Recreation Programs 2.848.800 U83,3OO 883.100 2,884,200 2,213,800 470,400 2.6711.000 2.333.100 344.200 2.171.100 2.1158.100 120.000 (883,600)
141 BCPV Programa 3,143.400 2.271.200 7411.200 124.000 3,107,800 2 640,300 305,000 162,600 3,4711,000 3.1711.000 200.000 100.000 3.676,000 3.345.000 200.000 30.000 194 0001
5.lIlIO.3OO 4.134.500 748.200 1.107,600 5.782,100 4,854,100 305 000 833,000 8.153.000 ll.llOll.1OO 200.000 444.200 1.253 100 6.1103,100 200.000 1110.000 1957 6001
Vehicle & Equipment Reserve (Net I 88.800 88 900 0
1~1 CORPORATf! SERVICES
II Management Servlces eeo,2OO 610.200 482,700 482,700 4112,700 4112,700 4112.700 I 412,700 (77,500)
b) Corporata Secretariat 202.450 202.450 188,100 188,100 196.100 188.100 1811.100 1811.100 (2,850)
cl Development OIIice 235,500 218,900 18,800 278.800 211.100 110.000 271,800 246,100 30.000 30,000
dl Communications 331.500 336.500 347,500 347,500 34 7.500 347.100 34 7.600 347,100 11,000
el Human Resourcn I Safety 227.050 227.050 247,200 30,000 217,200 232.200 30.000 202.200 234.700 30.000 204,700 (22,350)
f) OIIice Services 531.300 631,300 525,400 525,400 534,000 1134,000 1139,800 11311.100 8,500
gllnformallon Technology 208.700 206.700 278,200 278,200 246,200 246.200 295.800 285.800 89.200 ~
h) Financial Services llOll,700 350.000 158,700 498 600 350.000 148,600 483.900 275.000 208,800 4llll.800 286.000 231.800 73.200
2,572,800 350.000 2.222.800 2 801 200 350,000 248.800 2 204,300 2.100,100 521,800 2,27'.300 2.883.900 631.100 2.332.100 109,200
Corporate Services: % d Total Budge 6,'"' tin 70% 126% 92% 17.3% 82% 17,3%
-
19 669 500 8713 500 8 346.900 '1.655.2001 ~
OPERATING TOTAL 19 7211100 1 761 100 I 491300 8 464 400 1 809 100 20 144700 10273700 1741100 1 109 200 20 394400 101158400 t7211100 7llOl12OO --
MNR Tmnsfer Paymeri 1,701,000 836,000 938.000 936,000 (765,0001 ~
MuniclDaI Lew 7 763 400 7,410,900 7 173 200 6873200 (890,200) ~
PIIII tl
METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVA nON AUTHORITY AUTHORITY I
1"7 - '''9 BUSINESS PLAN FINANCIAL SUMMARY (WITH 1'91 COMPARATIVES)
1998 Prolected Estimates 1999 Prolected Estimates "
CAPITAL 1998 Budaet 1997 Preliminary Estimates tN
BUSINESS COMPONENTS GnIa. 1',.",.." 0"- H.,: L.vyl GlOSS ProlllBm Other Net: LeV)f 0...", I'1'OfI"'" Olber H.,: teW)'f GnIa. I'l'OfIram 0",., H.,: Levyl
& ACTIVITIES ft....... ......... GIanI EXDendltu",. Revenue Source" GlBnt E..a.n.tJI... ft....,.,. S""",.. GIanI Em.ndI11n ft.".,.,. Souc.. 0...., -
. . . . . . . S . . . . . . . . ..,t)
WATERSHED PLANNING ::0
1) Watershed Strategies ( Waterfront) 100,000 711,000 25,000 100,000 100,000 280,000 110.000 220,000 2~,OOO 10,000 220,000 ~
2) Resource Monllollng (Watedlonl) f70,OOO f70,OOO 111,000 111,000 170,000 f70,OOO 170,000 170,000
REOENERATION
6) RegeneIatlon capital Pnlfedl 12,714,100 f.272,OOO 3,412,000 1,040,100 111,382,&00 1,4110,000 &,2311,300 8,897,200 l,lIOO,OOO f,740,OOO 2110,000 4,1110,000 7,050,000 1,880,000 2110,000 II, ftO,OOO
7) land Acqulslllonl & Disposals 1,8110,000 1,000,000 8110,000 IlOO,000 3,900,000 2,1100,000 1,400,000 3,000,000 2,250,000 7110,000 3.000,000 2,2110,000 7110,000
WA TERSHED EXPERIENCE
Public Usa Infrllllucturl PIOjeclI 340,000 f70,OOO f70,OOO &311,000 287,&00 287,1100 340,000 f70,OOO f70,OOO 340,000 170,000 170,000
Admlnlltlatllle 0llIce 450 000 4110,000 1110.000 1110 000 110.000 110,000 IIOIlIlII 110 000
CAPITAL TOTAL 23llO4 100 11112 000 4 407 000 I~.IOO 20 178 &00 4 100 000 8,902,800 9,178.700 10 340 000 4 710 000 I OlIO 000 11070000 10llllllOOO 3110000 17m000 11170000
.
,
FBdO/Q7
~
(-
SECTION II
.. .. .a...._. ... ..__....... ....__....~. .~., "_'0
Ff3 f)1/q1
THE METROPOUTAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
BUSINESS PLAN 1997 -1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WATERSHED PLANNING, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , , , , . , . , , , , . , . , , . . . . 1
1. WATERSHED STRATEGIES """"""""""""",."""".,.",. 2
2, RESOURCE MONITORING " , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , 7
3. EDUCATION SERVICES ,..,..................,.............,........ 12
4, FLOOD WARNING/CONTROL """""""""""""""",.""" 15
LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES, . , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , . . , , , , , , . , , . , . , . , . . 17
5, PLANNING ADVlSORY/TECHNICAL CLEARANCE/PERMITTING/COMPUANCE
MONITORING, , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , , , , , . , . . . . , , . . . , . . 18
REGENERATION".".""."",.",."."""""",.""."."""".,.,.,.", 21
6, PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION (INCLUDES CAPITAL) .".",.,.,......,.22
7, LAND ACQUISITION AND DISPOSALS """"""".""".,.".".", 25
MANAGEMENT OF PUBUC ASSETS """"",..",.."""""."".,."".""" 29
8, PROPERTY SERVICES """""",.""."",.""",.,.,....".", 30
9, CA LAND MANAGEMENT """.""""""",.."".",.,.,.",.." 32
10. WATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES ................,..".,..,.,.....34
11. BCPV INFRASTRUCTURE, , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , , , , . , . , , . , . , , . . , . , , , , , , 36
12. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT "",.""""",."",."""",."""" 38
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE ,......,..,....,.........,........,.............."... 40
13. RECREATION - CONSERVATION AREAS, , . . , , . . , , , , , , , . , , , . , , , . . . , . , , . 41
14, BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE: PUBUC USE PROGRAMS ,.".,'."", 44
CORPORATE SERVICES """"""",.""""""."",.".."",.,.",.",.., 47
15. CORPORATE SERVICES. .. , .. , . . .. .. .. , . . , .. , . . . . .. , .. , . .. .. .. .. . .. . 48
Fl3d~/q
/I'
WATERSHED PLANNING
.... , - .. . . . .-. .
1
F6~3/CJ7
WATERSHED PLANNING
1. WATERSHED STRATEGIES 26 March 1997
1.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Watershed strategies are customized management frameworks developed to provide a
rational approach to natural systems protection, restoration, public education, recreation
and cultural and heritage planning, Specific studies and plans are undertaken leading
directly to resource management activities including habitat restoration, water quality
improvements and related issues, Watershed community awareness programs are
integral to strategy implementation,
1.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Watershed strategies provide a integrated program for natural environment management
for now and into the Mure, Strategies address and establish levels of protection,
restoration and enhancement of the natural environment; establish the desired
community benefits based on watershed resources; and plan for the maintenance of the
green infrastructure of the region,
Strategies are unique in that the resources of the region are assessed within their natural
framework, the watershed, The water and aquatic resources can only be adequately
planned for using an ecosystem, ie. watershed based approach, Terrestrial habitats
follow the valley and stream corridors, link headwaters within the region and are
integrated into this natural heritage framework, Completed watershed strategies provide
direction at all planning levels, are integrated into official plans and form the basis for
subwatershed planning efforts of many types and serve as the trigger for initiating
regeneration work,
Watershed Strategies are recognized as a rationale approach to addressing the severe
degradation of the area's resources, which led to the designation of the Toronto area
including the Etobicoke, Mimico, Humber, Don, Highland and Rouge watersheds as an
international area of concern within the great lakes basin, Watershed Strategies are the
basis for the coordination of efforts by all levels of government, the private sector and
communities required to restore the healthy environments desired,
The Authority's watershed strategy approach provides direct access involvement and
support of the public while maintaining the essential elements of political and pUblic
accountability through both the planning and implementation committees and the
Authority's regular committees.
1.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Federal & Provincial Agencies: Federal and provincial management units are vast and
removed from local community interests and contacts The province is moving away from
active involvement in the initiation and development of watershed strategies as it
devolves its responsibilities, The federal government is financially supportive, through
funding partnerships, of projects developed within the watershed strategy context but is
not equipped to identify, plan or undertake large numbers of essentially local projects, In
1997 DOE will begin to assist in funding the development of watershed strategies as well
as in project funding in accordance with its legal agreements under the bi-national Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement to restore beneficial uses of water in the Greater Toronto
Area
2
Fr3 'dl//'J
Watershed strategies developed and delivered by the provincial or federal level may lack
the inherent community based approach which can be achieved by the Authority,
LocallRegional Municipalities: Watersheds, in the Toronto area, generally transcend a
number of local and one or more regional jurisdictions, Local or regional governments
planning for their -Watersheds. on an individual basis have little control on upstream
activities or downstream activities that materially affect their resources, These individual
jurisdictions could enter into agreements with adjacent and often distant jurisdictions to
protect and or restore their resources, It is doubtful that this would be either cost
effective or provide enhanced resource management. The current structure already
provides a forum for municipal interests to be served through their representation on the
Authority and watershed councils.
Local Interest Groups: Watershed non-government groups could form to address the
full range of issues core to the development and implementation of watershed strategies.
This has not been the general experience within the GTA area Groups may face difficulty
in raising funds, securing multi-stakeholder commitments, developing, securing and
maintaining on-going technical expertise, Current approach of MTRCA seeks to integrate
these interests into the strategy development process achieving an efficiency through
sharing of technical resources among watersheds. This has resulted in considerable
amount of community involvement.
1.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT
OTHER MTRCA ACTIVITY?
-The Authority's area of jurisdiction is already structured around the appropriate
ecosystem units, Watersheds and the Lake Ontario Waterfront, with a legislated mandate
under the provincial Conservation Authorities Act to provide watershed management.
-MTRCA has the expertise, information resources, and the proven ability to develop
watershed/Waterfront strategies and deliver cost effective planning and implementation,
Watershed strategies are .internalized. within the Authority commenting and design
functions resulting in ongoing consistent implementation,
The Authority is committed to working with its municipalities, at the community level, with
business and others to develop effective and implementable strategies,
Conclusion: For all these reasons it makes sense for the Authority to remain as the lead
agency for watershed planning within its jurisdiction, The goal is to complete integrated
watershed strategies for all its watersheds and the Lake Ontario Shoreline within 5 years,
As well, strategies are living documents and need to be revised and updated based on
effectiveness monitoring, new technologies and approaches, and advances in
understanding of watershed regeneration in urban, urbanizing and rural areas,
. .
1.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
Sig~ificant cost reduction opportunities could only come by slowing the pace of strategy
development which does not seem advisable given the expectations and the momentum
among our community, municipal, and federal partners. We have built on the experience
gained in the Don and Humber studies, and from local subwatershed initiatives carried
out by municipalities, such that each subsequent strategy is carried out more efficiently
3
Ft3 '()-5/Cj7
than the previous one, In addition the latter watersheds are smaller or less degraded than
the Don or Humber and generally do not require as much funding,
Staff expertise is shared across strategies, for example, the Don Specialist directing the
Highland strategy,
1.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
Strategies are already built around contributions form a variety of sources other than
levy/grant. They include:
-Other Provincial sources (alternative to MNR grant)
-Federal government e,g" RAP implementation
-Private direct interests e,g" UDI
-Universities, Colleges (in-kind, partnership)
-Data donation
-Private foundations, Corporations
-In-kind/service donations from small business, individuals, etc,
1.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Watershed Plans normally proceed through 3 Phases over a 2-3 year time frame:
Phase 1: State of the Watershed (SOW) Report
Phase 2: Strategy Development & Endorsement
Phase 3: Implementation and Refinement
- a considerable amount of community outreach occurs continuously in all phases
The goal is to complete Watershed strategies for all major watersheds by the year 2000,
Watersheds within RAP should receive priority over next 3 years recognizing MTRCA's
new co-implementation role,
Don Humber Etob-Mimico Hiahland Rouae Duffins
1997 Phase 3 Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 3 Pre-Phase 1
1998 " " Phase 2 Phase 2 " "
1999 " " Phase 3 Phase 3 " "
1997: Humber: finalize Legacy (strategy plan),start Humber site work, establish
Humber Alliance
Don: Finalize Don Report Card, complete Wilket Crk sub-watershed Plan
Etobicoke-Mimico: establish Task Force, complete State of Watershed Report
Highland: start State of Watershed Report, assist implementation of Centennial Crk, Sub-
watershed plan (Fisheries, natural heritage)
Service level trends:
1997: new initiatives on the Highland, Rouge, Duffins, and the EtobicokejMimico
Watersheds built mostly.around new sources of funding, Work continues at a moderately
expanded pace on the Don, Humber, and the Waterfront.
1998-99: At end of 3 years the Humber, Highland, and Etobicoke/Mimico strategies will
be complete and work on the others to the point where all the strategies needed for the
Metro Remedial Action Plan will have been completed,
The implementation activity will depend in part on the success of the Authority in
developing partnerships and alternative funding as shown, Increased staff time will be
directed at partnership development and securing funds for projects,
Ongoing revisions take place within the context of implementation
4
Fg()~/9 7
1.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Watershed Strategies 1996 1997 . 1998 1999
pon Strategy- Expenditures 258,500 289,400 287,900 3OO,OOC
~emedial Action Plan funding 0 30,000 10,000 10,00C
~her Federal funding 0 30,000 30,00C
. Other Municipal, Provincial, or 100,000 0 50,000 20,00C
donations
Net Grant/Levy requirement 158,500 229,400 227,900 24O,00C
Humber Strategy- Expenditures 343,700 280,000 280,000 300,00C
Remedial Action Plan funding 10,000 10,000 10,OOC
Other Federal funding 20,000 20,000 20,OOC
Other Municipal, Provincial, or 100,000 30,000 30,000 30,00C
donations
Net Grant/Levy requirement 243,700 220,000 220,000 240,OOC
Etobicoke-Mimico - Expenditures 0 115,000 200,000 2oo,00C
Remedial Action Plan funding 0 40,000 75,000 75,000
Other Federal funding 0 25,000 25,000 25,OOC
Other Municipal, Provincial, or 50,000 50,000 50,00C
donations
Net Grant/Levy requirement 0 0 50,000 50,00C
Highland Crk- Expenditures 14,700 155,000 155,000 155,000
Remedial Action Plan funding 0 25,000 25,000 25,000
Other Federal funding 0
Other Municipal, Provincial, or 40,000 40,000 4O,00C
donations
Net Grant/Levy requirement 14,700 90,000 90,000 90,00C
~ouge Strategy-Expenditures 0 10,000 10,000 10,00C
Remedial Action Plan funding 0 10,000 10,000 10,00C
Grant/Levy requirement 0 0 0 C
Du1fins Strategy-Expenditures .... . .' 0 . . 25,000 25,000 C
Other Provincial funding 0 25,000 25,000 C
Grant/Levy requirement 0 0 0 C
Portion in Capital - Expenditures 171 ,100 100,000 280,000 280,00C
Remedial Action Plan funding 0 20,000 20,OOC
Oth~r -. n An nnn ~- ---
5
F(3;;7/CJ7
Other Municipal, Provincial, or 75,000 0 0 0
donations
Capital Grant/levy requirement 96,100 100,000 220,000 220,000
Total Operating Expenses 690,100 874,400 957,900 965,000
Total Capital Expenses 171,100 100,000 280,000 280,000
Operating-Levy/Grant 490,100 539,400 537,900 570,000
Caoital-Lew IGrant 25 000 100.000 220,000 220,000
1.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
- Measurable demonstrated improvements within watershed
- Measurable shift in understanding and stewardship
- Number of regeneration projects throughout watersheds
.
6
r:(3()'l /q 7
WATERSHED PLANNING 26 March 1997
2. RESOURCE MONITORING
2.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Resource inventory activities include: field data collection; acquisition of digital and
hardcopy mapped data; effectiveness monitoring of Authority recommendations; review
and analysis of remotely sensed data sources (eg, aerial photos, satellite imagery); and
participation in external studies, Resource inventory also includes the provision of core
technical expertise to analyze and interpret data that facilitates effective decision making
for AuthoritY policies, programs, projects, as well as traditional scientific 'research.
Technical expertise is fundamental in assisting our municipalities and community
partners,
Specific types of resource inventory and research activities include: sediment and water
quality sampling; terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat assessment; documentation of
existing environmental conditions on a watershed and sub-watershed basis; monitoring
of watershed and shoreline conditions in response to changing land use and
development; determination of stormwater management requirements; and, generation
of specific data and information in support of the Conservation Authorities Act (eg.
Natural hazards, flood, and fill regulation line mapping), Budget items related to resource
inventory and analysis must consider initial data acquisition, primary research,
information analysis, and data maintenance,
Resource inventory and analysis activities are required to support all aspects of Authority
business. For example: watershed strategies require detailed environmental inventories
to establish initial environmental conditions and watershed response to strategy
implementation; the plan review function requires current mapping of environmental
resources and regulatory lines in order to assess development proposals; MTRCA
partners require technical information on the response of watersheds to land use
changes in order to develop policies and development guidelines; finance and
administration requires mapping and database information on property acquisition and
disposal for land management and calculation of tax exemptions; and, facilities and
operations requires up to date information on Authority lands and assets in order to plan
for Mure development. These examples represent just a few of the many resource
inventory and analysis activities that are undertaken,
Since almost one hundred percent of the data and information collected by MTRCA is
related in some way to geography, a critical tool for resource inventory is Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology, This technology provides a mechanism for
inputting, manipulating, storing and outputting spatial data and linking databases of
textual information to a map base, Use of GIS is central to creating, maintaining and
distributing MTRCA's spatial data and information. Our municipal and provincial
business partners"have all-embraced this"technology and.1t has become expected as a
way of doing business,
2.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Accurate and current data is essential to ensure watershed management decisions,
programs, and projects are developed effectively and in conjunction with municipalities
and other agencies. Technical expertise is needed in such areas as water resource
engineering, public use, terrestrial and aquatic resources, heritage, resource inventories
to ensure an effective level of service to municipalities, agencies and the community,
7
F'f39Q/Q7
2.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HAND~.THE RESPONSIBILITY?
One possible alternative for meeting this demand is to turn the business over to a
combination of public agencies and the private sector. With this approach, municipalities
could become the lead agencies for collecting and holding resource management data
and information for their respective jurisdictions and the Authority could hire a private
sector consultant to interpret the data, conduct research and provide GIS services,
There are a number of drawbacks to this scenario: municipalities would have to build
expertise in resource management; the consultant would have to integrate all of the
information to provide the watershed perspective; the consultant would have to be hired
on retainer in order to address the Authority's day to day needs (probably offsetting any
cost savings realized through staff reductions); project schedules would be dependant
on the commitment of external agencies; and, the Authority would lose the extensive
watershed knowledge base that it has developed.
Resource inventory and analysis activities cannot be viewed independently from other
business functions at MTRCA. As long as the Authority continues with activities such as:
watershed strategies, land acquisition and management, land use planning, and
regeneration, there will be a need for data, information, and research to support those
businesses, Given these dependancies it makes sense for the Authority to have a data
inventory and analysis mechanism in place,
2.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE
OVER THREe YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
MTRCA ACTIVITY?
Currently, there is no other public or private agency in the GT A that is responsible for
collecting and analysing resource management information within a watershed context.
This context is what makes MTRCA's role critical for municipalities because it provides a
view that goes beyond municipal boundaries when considering the environmental
implications of various activities, It is sensible for this responsibility to rest with an agency
beyond the municipal structure in order to minimize duplication of effort and ensure
timely delivery of resource management information in the context of natural systems as
opposed to administrative units.
In some cases the focus of resource inventories will change and data collection will
increase or decrease depending on the importance of the activity that is being
supported, For example, currently no single agency is responsible of the inventory of
data and information required to understand ground water resources, This is an area in
which it is proposed that the Authority will expand activities, Similarly, the need to
update current flood and fill line mapping and convert to digital products has also been
identified as being essential. This is another area in which resource inventory activities
will expand over the next three years.
As technology continues to evolve, new computer based tools (eg, remote sensing and
global positioning systems) will emerge that are pivotal to MTRCA's continued leadership
in the collection, creation and management of watershed resource information, These
tools enhance the Authority's existing GIS and information systems and must be
eWlbraced in order to ensure the Authority's continued success as an information
management agency, --
S
F8 ?,o/Q7
2.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
It may be possible to privatize specific resource inventory functions and buy back the
services, For example, MTRCA could choose not to maintain internal GIS and mapping
and tender the delivery at those services to a contractor who would use the Authorities
equipment to deliver products, Under such a scenario, the Authority would no longer be
responsible for carrying the staff resources required to address the GIS business function
but would have to commit to hiring a contractor on retainer to address day to day GIS
needs, This option would require a full cost benefit analysis to determine whether there
are any true cost savings to MTRCA and our experience with the private sector indicates
that this may be a more costly option,
2.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
It may be possible to generate some cost recovery through the sale of data products, in
particular hard copy maps and digital data It is anticipated, however, that this will
amount to less than 5% of the overall costs, In addition, resource inventory staff could
take on inventory or research projects for other agencies, It should be recognized,
however, that this type at activity will increase project commitments and may detract from
the ability of staff to deliver on core Authority projects.
2.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Since so many other business activities of the Authority are linked to resource inventory,
increases in service delivery in other areas will impact on the need to provide data and
information, For example, if MTRCA chooses to expedite watershed strategies over the
next three years then resource inventory demands will increase accordingly,
1997: In general services are maintained at current levels, But in 1997 the projections
recognize for the first time an average $100,000 in special project revenue and
expenditures for resource inventory and analysis work funded from such sources as
provincial ministries, federal departments, NGO's and other special interest groups.
1998-99: Two areas that have already been identified as expanding are flood line
mapping (update and extension> and understanding of groundwater resources, Funds
for flood line mapping updates, equipment, and a hydrogeologist have been added.
9
Fe, 31/'17
2.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Resource Inventory-Operating 1996 1997 1998 1999
Science /Information staff 496,500 500,200 627,500 627,50C
Flood line mapping consultants 80,000 118,500 100,000 100,00C
GIS Equipment 26,500 20,000 20,000 20,00C
Other Mapping" Misc. 35,100 25,200 25,200 25,20C
Special Project staff 69,000 69,000 69,00C
Administration 136,700 136,400 116,700 116,70C
Total Expenditures n 4,800 869,300 958,400 958,40C
Archaeology Revenue 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,00C
Special Project 138,500 100,000 100,OOC
GrantlLevy Required 724,800 680,800 808,400 808,400
~esource Inventory-Capital 1996 1997 1998 1999
~taff 111 ,500 102,500 111 ,500 111,50C
!services 58,500 8,500 58,500 58,50C
0 0 0 C
Total Expenditures 170,000 111,000 170,000 170,00C
Revenue
IGrantlLew Reauired 170 000 111.000 170 000 170 000
2.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The key performance indicators are: successful provision of data, information, and
technical expertise to other business areas within the Authority; continued requests for
the provision of information to external agencies such as municipalities, federal and
provincial agencies, special interest groups and consultants; continued acquisition of
special project funding to support MTRCA projects and external partnerships; external
support for Authority initiatives and products that are supported by comprehensive
information: and recognition from business partners as a key resource management data
provider for the GT A,
10
Fr33 ~/q7
Appendix 1: Defining MTRCA Core Resource Inventory Interests
Defining Authority Interests
Watershed Management Mandate Description
Resource Interests
Natural Hazards
flood plains, valley and CM
stream corridors
Core Mandatory (CM):
erosion prone lands CM
(shorelines and The Authority is the agency responsible
unstable slopes) for the identification and management of
the resource.
Water Resources
groundwater quality CM
and quantity
Core Discretionary (CD):
surface water quality CM
and quantity The Authority shares the responsibility
for the identification and management of
Natural Heritage Resources the resource with other agencies,
fisheries CM
valley lands CM
habitats CD
woodlands and linkages CD Non-Core (NC):
wetlands CM
landforms CD The Authority's interests are solely in
inland lakes CM connection with related impacts on the
archaeological resources CD core mandatory and core discretionary
watershed management resource
Other Resources interests.
trails CD
public use areas CD
aggregates NC
agriculture NC
'. - , - . . . . . -
11
Fr3 33/q7
WATERSHED PLANNING
3. EDUCATION SERVICES 26 Ma~h 1997
3.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Provision of overnight conservation and curriculum related educational experiences to
school groups under contract to the Partner School Boards at two Field Centres within
the watershed and on a fee for service basis to other School Boards at two additional
Field Centres, All centres and programs are available for a charge to youth and adult
groups when not in use by schools, Daytime events and programming to the public and
school groups at the Kortright Centre for Conservation, Communication of Authority and
general conservation messages through community outreach initiatives.
3.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
It engenders support for conservation in general, as well as specific support for the
Authority and its watershed management activities by developing a knowledgable
community and encouraging individual actions aimed at conserving natural heritage
resources,
Conservation and environmental education is an integral component of the curriculum.
There is a need and a demand for this kind of programming and we are the logical
providers,
It provides rare opportunities for exposure to a rural setting for students and residents,
particularly from the urban core,
3.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDE THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
School Boards could each develop, maintain and operate their own facilities, but
development dollars for such would be scarce, School Boards with existing centres are
already finding it difficult to maintain them, and are looking to contracting the service to
cut operational and maintenance costs,
The existing Authority Centres could be leased to one or more watershed School Boards,
but we would lose control over the program and message. Privately run facilities (ie.
conference centres) could develop programs designed to meet the needs of educational
customers, but our expertise in this area is clearly recognized by the Boards.
While there is some possibility of placing the Kortright Centre under management
agreement, it is suggested that there are no other agencies with the expertise or the
interest to do this, It may be possible to explore further pUblic/private partnerships for the
Kortright Centre to reduce the publicly funded component of the budget.
3.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE
OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
MTRCA ACTIVITY?
Field Centres: We can do it cheaper and better than anyone else:
The Authority has essentially been contracted by the watershed School Boards to
provide educational programs for over 30 years on the premise that a consolidated,
regional operation is a more cost effective means of delivering the service than
independent and separate facilities operated by the Boards, The unique partnership
which has developed over the years has resulted in excellent programming being
delivered at the lowest possible cost to the tax paying public. Analysis of Authority run
Field Centres versus School Board run facilities indicates a substantially lower operating
12
Fe 34197
cost per unit for Authority facilities which deliver programs of at least equivalent quality.
An Investment In education today Ia an Investment In support for the future.
We need the continued exposure in the educational community to maintain support for
our programs and activities, Community outreach initiatives of Education Services staff
are a major source of public support for the work of the Authority, In the absence of
these initiatives, the efforts of the Authority would increasingly become-invisible to the
public resulting in the diminishment of that support,
3.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
A review of the operation of the Kortright Centre and staffing was carried out and in 1996
work was begun to integrate operations and maintenance of KCC with activities carried
out at Boyd Conservation Area
The Field Centres plan already incorporates a reorganization of staff responsibilities such
that overall staffing is reduced,
3.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
The elimination of programs at the Terra Cotta Conservation Area in Halton Hills has
resulted in a measurable increase in business at the Kortright Centre. It is anticipated
that, as financial pressures cause the reduction in supply of opportunities elsewhere, the
demand for our facilities will in fact increase, In addition, we will monitor the market
continuously to determine when or if demand shifts to day programs as opposed to the
overnight experiences currently offered in our Field Centres,
KCC will continue to pursue sponsorships to provide both revenue and in kind support,
However until better information is available these potential gains have not been factored
into the figures below,
3.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Assumptions and goals:
-Partner School Boards remain financially committed to Agreement Centres.
-Outdoor/environmental education remains a core component of curriculum.
-KCC will continue to offer high quality, entertaining environmental programs to the
public and to groups while operating more efficiently to reduce costs.
-Attendance will grow because of strong programs and promotion; Kortright will charge
for programs at a rate which reflects their value,
1997: The Field Centres education program was at a 92% cost recovery level in 1996,
Primarily through staff reorganization this will improve to full recovery of its program
costs and the program administration budgeted in the Corporate Service Plan,
1997: Integration of Kortright and the Boyd Conservation Area operations will be
continued in 1997 leading to additional efficiencies. Revenues at the Kortright Centre are
projected to increase by $118,100 over the next three years. In 1997 most of this
increase is due to higher fees for both the general public and groups. While group
programs are largely at capacity at the moment, there is some room for increasing public
attendance, Program innovations and effective promotion will provide increased
revenues in subsequent years to a total of $10,000.
13
P:f.;35/'t 7
3.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS:
~ducation 1996 1997 1998 1999
I=jeld Centres- Staff 1 ,156,300 1,038,600 998,600 998,60C
-Other 831,100 738,000 738,000 738,00C
~ otal Expenditures 1,987,400 1,776,600 1,736,600 1,736,60C
::>perating -Revenue 1 ,831 ,300 1,786,700 1,786,700 1 ,786, 70C
-Other 0 0 0 C
Municipal Levy 156,100 (10,100) (50,100) (50,100
<ortright Centre -General 1,075,300 958,300 958,300 958,30C
-Renewable Energy 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,OOC
-Food 84,500 72,700 90,000 90,00C
Total Expenditures 1,259,800 1,131,000 1 ,148,300 1 ,148,300
Operating -Revenue 550,500 620,500 643,000 648,000
-Renewable Energy 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
-Food 94,400 88,500 110,000 115,000
Municioal Lew 514.900 322 000 295 300 285 30C
3.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Attendance levels.
Customer service ratings derived from surveys.
Level of awareness of MTRCA as measured by exit surveys,
14
F(!;3~ /17
WATERSHED PLANNING 26 March 1997
4. FLOOD WARNING/CONTROL
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
Monitoring of weather and data collection to determine current watershed conditions, allows
forecasting of potential flooding, resulting in the issuance of flood messages, assisting in
municipal emergency planning and includes communications system requirement. Also
included flood warning upgrades related to municipal client requirements. Client groups
include provincial, regions, local, school boards, general public,
4.2. WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
This service is needed to reduce the risk to life or property associated with the natural
process of flooding through prediction of the location, magnitude, timing, and impact of
potential events,
4.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Alternatives might be:
Province: Would be a major change in policy for the Ministry of Natural Resources since the
task was delegated to conservation authorities. They have technical ability but the lack of
local knowledge will restrict efficiency/effectiveness of delivery.
Regional or local Municipalities: Would create new costs for municipalities as well as start
up training costs plus duplication across municipal boundaries, Generally, municipalities do
not have technical expertise and do not function on a watershed basis.
4.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
AUTHORITY ACTIVITY?
Flood warning activities have been a key role of the Conservation Authorities since their
inception, The MTRCA has been the lead agency in providing this critical service for our
municipal partners and has constructed and maintained a variety of physical structures,
theoretical models and databases for this purpose, These activities are supported by an
extensive base of current and historical knowledge about the watersheds in our jurisdiction,
No other current agency could realistically take over these activities without a significant
transfer of Authority skills and information. We believe that it is more effective and efficient to
retain the function with the MTRCA where the expertise, local knowledge, infrastructure and
watershed perspective already exists, Our goal is to continue providing these services and in
consultation with our municipal clients enhancing the service to more effectively meet their
needs, A clear indication of the continued importance and continuity of this activity is the
commitment 01 provincial grant for funding of flood warning activities.
Flood warning is an integral component of most Authority activities, For example, up to date
hydrology and hydraulic models are"essential1or devetopingllood and fill lines which support
plan review and enforcement 01 the Conservation Authorities Act, Data related to flood sites is
also a key part of Stormwater Management Strategies in land use planning,
15
~637/q7
4.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE SEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DEUVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
Reducing the level of activity would limit the ability to predict and advise on flooding
situations, The MTRCA is working with a Flood Warning Task Force with ather conservation
authorities to ensure efficiencies and consistency amongst authorities, This work involves
reviewing the sharing of resources and maximizing existing capabilities,
Private Sector involvement is not considered likely to result in cost savings,
4.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
There is limited potential to generate revenues from data collected for flood warning
purposes. Modest revenue may be realized in three areas:
- Marketing expertise outside the Province;
- Cost recovery opportunities by working with other agencies and conservation
authorities;
- Recovering cost associated with data for flood warning,
Factors that influence revenue for flood warning are limited clients and the loss of staff effort
that would not be providing day to day services,
4.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Service Level: Will continue with the current level of flood control activities (ie. maintenance
of existing data, models, and facilities) and will need to modify approaches to flood warning
(using GIS technology) in order to support client demands, Provincial and federal downsizing
is anticipated to make it necessary for the Authority to absorb the operating or closure costs
of several stream gauging stations.
4.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
FlOOD WARNING 1996 1997 1998 1999
Staff 238,800 246,200 246,200 246,200
Services 40,200 20,200 20,200 20,200
Equipment 6,000 12,000 6,000 16,000
Total expenditures 285,000 278,400 272,400 282,400
Special provincial 28,300 0 0 0
Other Municipal 50,000
GrantlLew Fundina 206 700 278 400 272,400 282 400
4.9 KEY PERFORMANCE 1NDICATORS?
The key performance indicators are: adequate prediction, warning, and reduction of impact of
flood events (i.e, minimized property damage)
16
rf33g1CJ7
LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES
1'." . .~.. .' .. ...... '" .. ~ _ ~ 9 .. . . . .. . - .
17
Fr!> 3 '1/'1 I
LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES March 26, 1997
5. PLANNING ADVlSORYITECHNICAL CLEARANCE/PERMITTlNG/COMPUANCE
MONITORING
5.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
The MTRCA provides clients within the land use planning and development industry with
information, analysis, recommendations and/or approvals on various matters related to
watershed management including natural hazards (flooding, erosion and slope stability),
natural heritage resources (valleylands, wetlands, habitats, fisheries, etc,) and water
resources (quantity and quality), The MTRCA also protects and advances its property
interests. There are three key service areas, summarized as follows:
Planning Advisory
Input and review of municipal planning documents and infrastructure proposals, private
development applications and related studies such as subwatershed plans. General
information and advice to landowners,
Technical
Review and verification of various studies and reports that support the approval of specific
development proposals (eg, geotechnical analysis),
Permitting
Approval/refusal of construction projects affecting valleylands, lakes, wetlands, rivers and
streams (including areas prone to natural hazards) pursuant to MTRCA Fill, Construction and
Alteration to Waterway Regulations and other regulations assigned through specific
partnership agreements, Enforcement of the regulation including compliance monitoring of
approved projects,
5.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Healthy watersheds directly contribute to the social and economic health of communities,
Through the land use planning and development process, risks associated with natural
hazards are avoided or minimized, environmental features and functions are protected and
restored and opportunities for public use and enjoyment of watershed resources are planned
and implemented, Land owners and decision makers also have various statutory obligations
that must be met.
5.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Both the province and municipalities have direct interests in watershed management and
deliver land use planning and development services; however, the province is reducing its
level of service to focus on planning documents and more limited permitting activities,
Municipal services cover a broader range of issues, There is minimal duplication of Authority
services even on matters of joint concern. Municipalities can replace specific MTRCA
products and services by developing/retaining in-house expertise, retaining consultants,
relying on peer review and/or certification, These alternative models are currently employed
to varying degrees and on a limited range of issues, They cannot replace the full range of
MTRCA services nor achieve the same cost effectiveness,
5.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE
OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER MTRCA
ACTIVITY?
The Authority has a multi-disciplinary team that provides integrated assessments, There are
no "start-up" costs,
The Authority has extensive knowledge and information of watershed resources that is not
available elsewhere. This information is extended through other Authority business activities
such as Watershed Strategies which also expand partnership funding,
18
Fl:5 'f: 0/9-,
The Authority provides analysis on a watershed basis ensuring that upstream and
downstream municipalities and residents benefit from "COnsistent standards, management
strategies and public use opportunities,
The Authority's services are shared by its member municipalities reducing the direct costs to
anyone agency,
The Authority's expertise and experience allows for scope study requirements reducing time
lines and costs for the proponent,
The Authority owns and manages over 13,000 hectares of greenspace lands which is
recognized as a valuable public asset. Property interests are protected and extended
through the land use planning and development process,
5.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DEUVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
Planning Advisory 1997-98: information sharing will improve to maximize value-added
service delivery through pre-screening and reduced circulations
1997: condominium reviews will be eliminated,
1997: variance reviews will primarily be restricted to applications adjacent,to Authority owned
lands.
1997-99: expand our expertise and guidance pursuant to Watershed Planning initiatives (eg,
groundwater),
1997-99: increase our efforts to complete watershed resource inventories for municipal clients
eg" Phase I component of Master Environmental Servicing Studies/ Subwatershed Plans
1997-99: through new municipal/CA partnerships assume related Provincial Plan Review
responsibilities as a result of Provincial service reductions, which will/may include all or some
provincial objectives for the Rouge Park, Oak Ridges Moraine and Provincial Policies under
the Planning and Development Act.
1997-99: increase emphasis on integrating community and resource planning eg" trails,
access, etc.
Technical Clearance -1997-98: develop partnership arrangements with municipalities to
improve or streamline the delivery of services for example, those related to stormwater
management associated with development applications.
Permitting - 1997: reduce and/or simplify the need for approvals and/or the approval
mechanism for "minor" works,
1997-98: develop and expand partnership agreements (like the current Don Watershed "One-
Window" agreement) to incorporate other water-related Municipal, Provincial & Federal
regulations and its application to all MTRCA watersheds,
1997-99: increase emphasis for land stewardship education in both approvals and
enforcement.
5.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
- user fees for regulation services will be continued and increased as appropriate, (last
adjustment March 1996), These user fees will not be 100% cost recovery, recognizing
municipal contributions through other sources (eg., levy) and current legislative constraints,
- user fees for non-municical clientS eg" development charges, general fees for development
applications and/or fees for technical clearance services only. See next section.
- an alternative to municipal levy may include a charge on water bills,
5.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
- see Section 5,5 for efficiency initiatives,
19
I=='B41/Gf 7
Strategic Shifts: .
1997-98: Construction and Alteration to Waterwetf Regulations to go from the current :60%
to 100% coverage of all valley and stream corridors and fill regulations, pursuant to CA Act
amendments,
1997: Fill and Alteration to Waterway Regulations for the Lake- Ontario Shoreline expand to
include construction, pursuant to CA Act amendments,
1997/1998: finalization of partnership agreements between Regional and local municipalities
and GT A Authorities resulting from the transfer of provincial plan review activities and the
ability to deliver integrated planning and permitting functions (related to the Red Tape
. Review),
Key changes:
1997: reduction of permitting staff, For non-municipal clients- implementation of user fees for
planning advisory / technical clearance services covering 25% of the cost of services,
1998: increase in technical support staff, User fees for planning advisory / technical
clearance services to 35% of the cost of services,
1999: to 50% cost recovery
5.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Land Use Planning 1996 1997 1998 1999
Planning Advisory & 545,400 553,400 644,800 644,80C
Technical Clearance
...egal costs 17,500 50,000 50,000 50,00C
Permitting 769,300 724,000 712,400 747,20C
...egal costs 17,500 25,000 25,000 25,OOC
!Total Expenditures 1,349,700 1,352,400 1,432,200 1,467,00C
Fees- Planning 0 165,000 300,000 347,40C
Fees- Permitting 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,00C
Grant I Lew 1,149.700 987 400 932 200 919 60C
5.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Efficiency Indicators include:
Volume against MTRCA outcomes
Activity against service delivery time frames
MTRCA expenditures against alternatives
. client needs against services
Effectiveness Indicators include:
. MTRCA Watershed Report Cards performance measures
. Municipal Official Plan performance measures
. . .client needs against.services
20
Ff3'-1dICJ7
REGENERATION
, . . .. & ... - -. . .
21
Ff3~3/q7
REGENERAll0N March 26, 1997
6. PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION (INCLUDES CAPITAL)
6.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
The Authority provides expertise and technical leadership in delivering integrated
environmental restoration projects on a watershed basis, These activities support Watershed
Planning through the implementation of strategy activities such as:
- Stream rehabilitation and fisheries improvement;
- Flood control projects such as Bolton by-pass channel;
- Valley and Waterfront Shoreline Erosion Protection and slope stability works such as
the Bellamy Ravine and Sylvan Avenue projects;
- Technical advice and assistance with respect to land stewardship issues to private
and public landowners, community groups and other public agencies;
- Site remediation (soils clean-up) of environmental degraded sites such as the former
PolyresinslDomtar site in East York;
- Design, management and implementation of environmentally sensitive projects in
partnership with community groups and public agencies;
- Propagation of native trees and shrubs for use in regeneration projects undertaken in
partnership with landowners, community groups and other agencies;
- Development of regional waterfront parks such as Colonel Sam Smith and Bluffers
Park,
6.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?:
- Promotes sound land stewardship practices through the dispersal of sound technical
advice and assistance;
- Partners with community groups to design and implement regeneration projects in
scale from community tree plantings to the integrated management of multi-year
multi-million dollar capital projects such as the Sylvan Drive Erosion Control Project;
- Integrates environmental and public safety objectives while protecting lives and
property;
- Satisfies the community and public need for a healthy natural environment thereby
improving the quality of life.
6.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Municipalities or other provincial agencies such as the Ministries of Natural Resources and
Environment and Energy could assume the Authority's role, However, this would result in a
less integrated and effective approach as regeneration activities would be managed within
political and administrative boundaries rather than within the ecosystem context of a
watershed basin. Further, budget constraints have forced provincial agencies to focus on
priorities on a broader provincial perspective which re-enforces the Authority's important role
as the local level partner with municipalities.
In addition, the integrated technical expertise provided by the Authority would need to be
replaced on a municipal or district basis. Given that there are 22 municipalities, in whole or in
part, within our watershed, the economic advantage of consolidating technical expertise
within. one integrated organization is lost.
Federal environmental agencies also operate on a broad scale and rely on the Authority to
deliver community based environmental initiatives through programs such as the Great Lakes
Clean Up Fund,
22
FI3'1Y/Q7
6.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DEUVER AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE
OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER MTRCA
ACTIVITY?
- Authority has the expertise, experience, and integrated skill sets required for delivering
quality environmental projects on a watershed basis;..
- Authority works at the community level, integrating watershed and local needs;
- Only public agency with the ability to effectively design and develop environmental
projects in an integrated manner on a watershed basis;
- Authority has diversity of expertise and can respond to shifts in emphasis quickly to
ensure that the maximum level of service is provided to meet our partners
requirements,
For these rfilasons, it is essential that the Authority continue to provide integrated
environmental expertise, leadership, and innovation with respect to regeneration services to
municipalities, other environmental agencies and the community,
These services support Watershed Planning through the implementation of strategy actions,
and depend on Resource Inventory and Effectiveness Monitoring for environmental
information and data
6.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
A core group of full-time experienced technical supervisors coordinate the deployment of
staff and contractors to ensure the effective utilization of resources, Where appropriate,
operations function on a seasonal basis, Further, project management techniques are used
to coordinate work schedules to maximize existing staff resources while minimizing the need
for the hiring of supplemental staff, In addition, supervisors are encouraged to enhance staff
skill sets by providing on-the-job training opportunities through the active diversification of job
tasks,
Consideration has been given to out sourcing work to independent contractors, but our
experience has been that our standards of expertise and environmental sensitivity are difficult
to achieve. Contractors have been used to deliver activities related to forest management,
however strict screening criteria are employed in the selection of these contractors, In
addition, the direction and supervision of the forest management activity is retained by staff,
6.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
A considerable amount of activity is already built around special funding and partnership
initiatives such as Great Lakes Clean Up Fund, RAP, etc..
Consideration is being given to contracting out well monitored forestry activities in order to
generate additional wood sales revenue, which will offset non-revenue generating activities
such as reforestation, the creation of fire breaks, and disease control.
6.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
The Authority does not project a mSjor increase or decrease in the program activities,
However, it is assumed that our partners and the community at large will continued to
demand the implementation of integrated environmental projects on a watershed basis,
Should a shift in emphasis occur over the next three years the Authority has the expertise,
experience, integrated skill sets, and flexibility to respond to the requirements of our partners,
23
FC3 Y 5/'17
6.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Regeneration-Planning & 1996 1997 .' 1998 1999
mplementation
Operating- Planning & Design, 250,400 226,900 213,900 213,90C
Technical services
-Nursery Operations 250,000 187,500 192,000 200,OOC
Planting & forest management 76,400 97,700 76,400 76,40C
Habitat Restoration, Fisheries, Water 612,800 598,800 602,300 602,30C
quality, Studies
Total Operating Expenditures 1,189,600 1,110,900 1,084,600 1,092,60C
Operating -Revenue 441,400 400,200 404,700 412,70C
-Other Provincial 410,500 400,000 400,000 400,00C
Ooeratina -Lew/Grant 337.700 310.700 279.900 279 90C
Capital: Waterfront Regeneration 2,210,300 2,675,000 2,000,000 3,000,OOC
Etobicoke Motel Strip 3,000,000 2,100,000 1,750,000 1,500,OOC
Waterfront Park
RAP Implementation 1,000,000 1,892,500 1,200,000 1,200,00C
Valley & Shoreline Regeneration 1,389,300 1,490,000 1,200,000 1,200,00C
Toronto Islands Erosion Control 194,500 70,000 0 0
Brickworks 3,000,000 2,355,000 0 C
Canada Post Remediation 1,500,000 4,800,000 350,000 150,OOC
Dixie Dundas Flood Control 500,000 0 0 0
'P'otal Capital Expenditures 12,794,100 15,382,500 6,500,000 7,050,00C
Capital -Revenue 1,025,000 100,000 0 500,00C
-Other 3,379,000 6,050,100 1,740,000 1,190,OOC
-Federal 350,000 535,200 250,000 250,OOC
Capital -Lew/Grant 8040100 8 697.200 4510000 511000C
6.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Quantitatively
- The accomplishment of actions such as: achievement of RAP objectives, increase in
forested areas, increase in length of rehabilitated streams, and remediation of
environmentally degraded lands,
Qualitatively
- The belief that our work haS satisfied the public need for a healthy environment, and
thereby improved the quality of life.
24
F64lt,jQ-
REGENERATION March 26, 1997
7. LAND ACQUISITION AND DISPOSALS
7.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
The Authority's Strategy For Acquisition and Disposal of Land. Assets will be finalized in 1997
for consideration by the Authority,
Acquisition of property interests is achieved through fee simple purchases, easements, deed
restrictions and stewardship agreements as defined by the Authority's Strategy for Acquisition
and Disposal of Land Assets, Acquisition and protection of greenspace and hazard lands is
essential for healthy watersheds, protection of natural heritage features and hazard lands,
Acquisition ~s implemented through the Authority's general Greenspace Protection and
Acquisition Project or special acquisition projects, which are mounted as required, Fee
simple purchase is the preferred means of protecting greenspace, Easements, deed
restrictions, etc, are not as effective and have comparable administration costs.
Not all the Authority's land holdings are required to maintain the regional greenspace system,
Land holdings are periodically reviewed with respect to their environmental significance and
regional openspace requirements, Lands not fulfilling these requirements are recommended
for disposal, subject to an assessment of the current market, and the resulting revenues
mainly reinvested in high priority environmentally significant lands, Dispositions also reduce
the cost of property taxes and land maintenance associated with carrying lands which do not
support Authority watershed objectives,
7.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Greenspace lands contribute significantly to the overall health of our watersheds and to the
quality of life within the GT A through the protection of the natural and cultural heritage
features and the maintenance of the ecological relationships and functions, while providing
opportunity for public use through linked openspace corridors.
Acquisition and protection of greenspace and hazard lands is within the mandate of the C,A.
Act and the policies of the 1980 Watershed Program, Valley and Stream Corridor
Management Program and the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project. The
importance of protecting regional greenspace resources and preventing development in
hazard areas is generally supported local and regional Official Plans. Planning measures
have not been adequate to protect the greenspace and it is unlikely the Provincial
government will introduce legislation to prohibit development on environmentally significant
lands,
7.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
a) Local Municipalities: Their objectives are to provide park land for local recreational
uses such as ball diamonds, soccer fields, play grounds etc. Generally the Authority's
greenspace objectives have not conflicted with local recreation objectives, However,
the competing land needs of municipalities for other than openspace uses can cause
land use changes to the detriment of greenspace objectives. Generally, the amount of
greenspace acquired varies by municipality and the most environmentally significant
or hazard lands which have limited potential use would be of the least interest to the
municipality. Further, the local municipalities, because of municipal boundaries, may
not have a watershed perspective,
b) Regional Municipalities: The regional municipalities other than Metropolitan Toronto
do not provide regional parks and openspace, As with local municipalities, regional
municipalities are not motivated to acquire the most environmentally significant lands
25
r:--B47/q7 and may not have a watershed perspective.
c) Waterfront Regeneration Trust The Waterfront Trust has similar objectives to the
Authority. However, their jurisdiction does not extend beyond the waterfront,
d) Ontario Heritage Foundation: The Ontario Heritage Foundation is focused on
acquiring only provincially significant lands,
e) Watershed based groups (eg" Save the Rouge): These group have a Watershed
perspective and similar objectives, However, they usually have very limited resources-
and a specific area focus.
1) Nature Conservancy of Canada: Their focus is national and therefore would only
consider for acquisition the most environmentally significant greenspace lands.
If the Waterfront Trust's legislation was amended to include watersheds and Oakridges
Moraine they would be the most appropriate agency to take over land acquisition, A
combination of the other agencies may also provide the necessary greenspace protection on
a fragmented basis,
7.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DEUVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
AUTHORITY ACTIVITY?
The Authority is presently the only agency that can provide comprehensive greenspace
acquisition requirements for its area of jurisdiction on a watershed basis, The Conservation
Authorities Act requires Provincial approval prior to land disposal, providing additional
protection for the preservation of greenspace lands,
To advocate the protection of and to acquire and protect greenspace and hazard lands in the
context of the Lake Ontario Shoreline, our Watersheds and Oakridges Moraine, continues to
be one the major objectives of the Authority over the long term,
7.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
. Increased use of consultants, The Authority uses consultants for such disciplines as
survey, legal, appraisal and environmental audits. These services are only required on
a limited basis and therefore it is not cost effective to hire full time staff for these
activities. The Authority has utilized consultants from time to time for property
negotiations, However, experience has proved it is much more effective to use staff
with the requisite skills and knowledge of Authority policies than consultants on a full
time basis,
. Improved computer systems will provide some additional efficiencies in the delivery
of this activity,
7.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE. BEEN CONSIDERED?
. Land donations,
. Charles Sauriol Environmental Land Trust Fund.
. Continue acquiring land at a nominal sum through the development process.
. Partner with municipalities; Special Projects - separate capital funding approved,
. Sell surplus lands over time as market opportunities dictate to maximize return over
the long term.
. Balance sales to meet acquisition priorities over the next 3 years,
26
~{34~/q-/
7.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUilT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Objectives: The table below indicates the greenspace lands-brought into public ownership to
date and the lands still outstanding as identified in the Master Plan for Acquisition, The plan
provides a modest base so that they can acquired at market value as they become available,
Not reflected here are other acquisitions which arise from time to time where specific parties
federally, provincially or municipally request us to coordinate a project around a particular
site.
Watershed Total Authority Other Publicly ::":nlng To Be J % ~-<:",,:;!;;t;;.
Greenspace Owned Lands Owned Lands
Lands Acquired
Etobicoke 4,913 924 1,632 2,3571 ~.
Mimico 1,725 99 874 752 ~
Humber 34,653 16,400 2,610 15,643 -
Don 9,413 2,244 2,6n 4,4921 ~-
Highland 2,115 975 529 611 T 7
Rouge 7,676 2,718 1,452 3,506 1 ~
...
Petticoat 635 329 3 3031 ~
Duffins 11 ,463 5,313 3,674 2,476 (
-
Carruthers 842 62 28 752 1
Waterfront 3,757 3,1n 247 333 Ii
II TOTAL I 77,1921 32.241 I 13,7261 31,225 I -
Assumptions:
1) Acquisition of properties and funding levels will be determined by our ability to raise
funds through land sales, donations and partnerships, Private sector and/or other
municipal participation will be vitaJ,
2) The Province continues to support land acquisition through permitting the Authority
to retain the Provincial share of the proceeds from sales for the purchase of high
priority Greenspace properties,
3) There are I,~ds surplus tq the Authority's requirement that will. generate funds for
acquisition, To maximize revenues based on fair market value while ensuring
compatible land uses.
27
Ff34CJ/17
7.8 FINANCIAL PROJEcnONS:
ndA . It Dls osals 1996 1997 1998 1999
cqulsltion budget 9,650,000 3,900,000 3,000,000
rojected Land Sale Revenue 4,500,000 2,500,000 2,250,000
available
her Sources: Donations, 4,350,000 1,400,000 750,000
Municipal, Provincial, Federal
unici al Ca Ital Le 800 000 '0 0
2 F,T,E, positions are required to support this activity to be funded from the activity,
7.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
The area of greenspace lands acquired,
Fulfilment of public expectations,
Sale of land assets at market value,
.
'" - . '
28
F550/Cf7
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS
. P. ".. . ,. " .... . > .. . ,- ... . .
29
r: (35 '/~7
MANAGEMENT OF PUBUC ASSETS March 26, 1997
8. PROPERlY SERVICES
8.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
. Property management and administrative services relating to ownership of land:
- maintain complete and accurate property data base;
- provide current property information to intemaJ and extemaJ customers
- encroachment resolution;
- negotiate easements and minor sales (eg" road widenings);
- negotiate property management and permission to enter agreements;
- deliver administrative services related to taxes, assessment, insurance;
- property acquisition services related to other Authority programs and capital
projects,
. Insurance coverage and risk management for Authority land, buildings, contents,
vehicles, equipment and events, Insurance costs, with the exception of liability
insurance, are charged directly to programs,
. Review and appeal, when necessary, of assessments for Authority lands and payment
of realty taxes.
Mapping support from the GIS section is required from time to time for assessment appeals
and to determine which Authority land qualifies for the Provincial grant.
8.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
. An a1temative reviewed is self insurance, Self insuring would require the
establishment of a substantial reserve to cover the Authority for major claims and
losses, as well as minor costs to manage various legal actions and minor claims. Until
adequate reserves can be established this approach can not be recommended,
Further there is no guarantee self insuring will achieve savings in the long run,
. The Authority's tax costs are being reduced by the following methods:
a) With the introduction of Bill 1 06 relating to property taxation in the Province,
staff will be ensuring that all Authority lands are assessed and taxed under the
new rules,
b) Assessments are being appealed on a majority of Authority lands. The initial
phase of this project was completed in 1996, Staff will continue to appeal any
assessments considered high on a year to year basis as re-assessments
occur.
c) Management agreements with municipalities are under consideration
8.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Service Level:
. To minimize costs and risks and deliver services and products in a timely and efficient
manner;
- up-to-date mapping
- up-to-date and accessible property information
- respond to inquires in a timely manner
- satisfactory and timely resolution of encroachment issues
- delivery of easements, minor sales (road widenings) in efficient and timely manner
- delivery of agreements in a timely manner
30
F 13s ';)/~~
. To minimize costs and exposure and maximize effective insurance coverage, All
Authority buildings and contents will be reviewed and any buildings and contents that
would not be replaced in case of a loss will not be insured, The Authority will continue
its proactive risk management training of staff and regular site inspections, Staff will
continue to require indemnification agreements and insurance from parties utilizing
our lands where possible.
. Ensure taxes are paid on time and assessments are maintained at the lowest possible
amount to reduce the realty tax payments,
Insurance
That no ch~ges in insurance requirements will occur as a result of changes in the Authority's
activities in the next three years,
8.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS:
1996 1997 1998 1999
310,900 230,200 209,000 209,00
880,600 950,000 970,000 990,00
108,500 97,400 97,400 97,40
1,300,000 1,277,600 1,276,400 1 ,296,40
0 0 0
1 300 000 1 277 600 1 276 400
Note 1 : The 1996 tax amount is lower because of the receipt of refunds relating to assessment
appeals for 1994 and 1995.
5,5 F,T,E. positions and administration costs are attached to this activity, There are the
occasional revenue opportunities through easements and minor sales,
8.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
. Delivery of insurance coverage at the least cost to the Authority,
. Delivery of services and products in a timely and efficient manner.
. Realty tax payable is minimized,
. - 0, .... .
31
P553/&J7
MANAGEMENT OF PUBUC ASSETS
9. CA LAND MANAGEMENT
9.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
This activity includes provision for basic property maintenan(:8 (i,e, fencing, road access,
hazard tree removal) associated with lands owned and directly managed by the MTRCA, It
also covers costs associated with land ownership that would be incurred whether or not there
was public use, These costs include:
Property taxes/lnsurance: for lands managed directly by the Authority and building and fire
insurance for Authority structures, These taxes are a fundamental cost of land ownership.
General Costs including:
Utilities: share of heat, hydro and water for workshop facilities, and alarms for Authority
buildings, Water systems, in some instances are shared with Field Centres, rental properties
and other Authority operations,
Vehicle & Equipment usage: related to patrol and maintenance of Authority lands, This
expenditure would include costs related to snow ploughing of Authority properties to provide
winter access to facilities for maintenance and emergency purposes, Charge back for a
minimal level of grass cutting has also been included,
Communications: share of radio system, telephone and mobile telephone costs associated
with patrol and land maintenance,
Materials: associated with land maintenance, This would include fencing material, salt and
sand, gravel, uniforms, signs, and plant material.
Labour: staff time to deliver land management activities such as labourers (concentrated in
the active maintenance season), trades person for infrastructure maintenance, and
some supervisory costs, These figures represent 6 -7 full time equivalents.
Share of Program administration: overhead associated with the land management program,
9.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
The Authority has a legal responsibility to maintain its lands to a certain standard, This legal
responsibility is based on a need to protect the public from physical harm from hazards and
to meet the requirements of such legislation as the Weed Control Act and local property
standards by-laws. In addition, the Authority holds, in trust for the public various assets in the
form of natural areas, other lands and infrastructure such as buildings and roads, The
Authority has a responsibility to ensure that these assets do not deteriorate unduly due to
inadequate management or maintenance. It is therefore important that a reasonable level of
care for these assets be maintained,
9.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
It is possible to place Authority lands under management agreement with local or regional
municipalities if the municipalities perceived that they would receive a net benefit by
assuming responsibility for a property, It is unlikely that it would be possible to turn over all of
the Authority's properties as long as the Authority remains the owner because of the fiscal
constraints faced by municipalities and other agencies.
9.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE-YEARS? DOES, THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
MTRCA ACTIVITY?
The Authority should deliver basic land management because it is obligated to do so as the
land owner. The activity is linked to, and supports the Authority's recreation program. It is,
however, not dependent upon it, and must be continued even if recreation programming is
eliminated,
Conservation Area staff currently perform a number of functions associated with the needs of
other sections of the Authority. These include:
32
- River Watch and Flood Warning System FT554/97
- Snow Course Program
- Operation of Claireville Dam
- Fire Suppression Program
Provision has not been made for these services under basic"land management costs,
It should be noted that there are a variety of costs which are associated with land
maintenance but which are currently funded under other Sections, These would include
administration of the Safety Program, Enforcement (estimated at 15 days per year) and
support from Resource Science with regard to issues such as wildlife management. These
items are not included in the budget estimates provided below,
9.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DEUVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
Significant portions of the overall activity cost are fixed, This would include such items as
taxes and insurance, It may be possible to deliver some activities more cost effectively
through such means as contracting out activities, Where this proves to be the case alternate
means will be used.
9.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
The costs outlined are based on the Authority's current inventory of directly managed
properties and no major service level changes are projected, If additional lands are
purchased, or if lands currently under management agreement revert to the Authority, costs
will rise proportionately,
The proportion of total costs to major items are approximately as follows:
Property Taxes & Insurance 20%
Operations:(vehicles, staff, materials, share of utilities, communications) 70%
Program OVerhead 10%
Hazard trees are currently dealt with on a complaint basis, and the costs are included in Area
budgets, The currer:tt level of hazard tree management is inadequate and does not properly
address the Authority's liability exposure. The projections include about $10 -15 thousand for
an enhancement of the hazard tree program through the use of qualified contractors.
9.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
CA Land Management 1996 1997 1998 1999
Direct service Costs 415,300 419,700 419,700 419,70C
Taxeannsurance/Overhead 184,700 182,000 182,000 182,00C
Total expenditures 600,000 601,700 601,700 601 ,70C
Operating -Revenue 0 0 0 C
MunlclDal Lew 600.000 601.700 601 700 601 70C
9.9 KEY PERFORMANCclNDICATORS
The Authority is meeting its legal obligations as a land owner and is adequately managing its
lands, There is no deterioration in the condition of the existing infrastructure on Authority
properties and no environmental degradation on these lands. This would be determined
through periodic inspection with resources to be applied on a priority basis to areas of
concern, Staff would also monitor indications that requirements were not being met (for
example Weed Control Orders or public complaints) and would adjust resources accordingly.
33
r:B55/q7
MANAGEMENT OF PUBUC ASSETS
10. WATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
10.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Infrastructure is the various structures, other than buildings, which the Authority owns and
maintains, such as dams, channels, dykes, and other flood and erosion control structures,
10.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Need to maintain the viability of the structures so that they can fulfil their intended purpose of
reducing the risk to life & property,
10.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBIUTY?
Province: MNR has already delegated responsibility to Authorities, They no longer have
expertise to run local dams or the knowledge of local requirements,
Regional and local municipalities: we have already arranged for some sharing of simple
maintenance at some facilities and there is potential for more but in terms of system operation
or higher level maintenance affecting structural integrity the expertise is not present.
Municipal staff regularly utilize Authority expertise in relation to infrastructure having flood &
erosion considerations.
10.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DEUVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
MTRCA ACTIVITY?
We already have the expertise and the watershed perspective, It is more cost effective to
have regional delivery that transcends borders.
It is also part of the Authority's Provincial mandate which includes flood and erosion control. A
Detailed review is underway for the purposes of identifying operations and maintenance of
flood control structures under new provincial criteria The Authority has a legal responsibility
to operate and maintain dams and flood and erosion control structures,
10.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
Private sector: We already sub-contract at the level we think is optimal,
Staffing: no full time operators, As needed only.
Maintenance: already done on priority basis only.
10.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
There is perhaps some limited opportunity to provide project design, construction and/or
maintenance to outside parties which has been done in the past, It is not clear if this could be
done without impacting essential functions.
10.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Status quo service level assuming that no new structures are built,
34
10.8 FINANCIAL PAOJEcnONS: F85fojQ7
1996 1997 1998 1999
38,000 48,400 48,400 46,
107,500 79,500 79,500 79,
145,500 125,900 125,900 125,
0 0 0
145 500 125 900 125 900
10.9 KEY PERF9RMANCE INDICATORS
-condition of structures
- # of "emergency" repairs
- economic loss that would have oCcurred
-- -
-. .. .. ' - . .. .... .... " .. " . -
35
F13 57/'17
MANAGEMENT OF PUBUC ASSETS
11. BCPVINFRASTRUCTURE
11.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Black Creek Pioneer Village assets are held in trust by the Authority. There is a basic
requirement for maintenance of the assets whether the Village is operating or closed,
Detailed lists of the assets include 50,000 historical artifacts of regional and provincial
significance, 42 restored buildings, 2 burial grounds, the Visitors Centre and maintenance
shop,
The onlyO other major heritage building is Bruce's Mill, One heritage activity which needs to
be recognized is the archeological resources and associated artifacts,
11.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Even in the event that the Village was not operating, the Authority would have legal and
ethical obligations to maintain the artifacts, many of which have ben donated on the
assumption they would be maintained by the Authority in perpetuity, While some artifacts
might be disposed of in accordance with Provincial museum rules, a large part of the
collection, particularly large equipment and the buildings themselves would have to be
maintained. Uvestock, retail inventories, most maintenance equipment, unneeded office
equipment and costumes could be liquidated,
Archeological artifacts are housed at the Royal Ontario Museum, The archeological sites
would be left in an undisturbed state, Provincial regulations require that artifacts found be
turned over to the Province, Site inventories would have to be maintained should other uses
of the sites occur,
11.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDE THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
a) ProvincialjMunicipal Takeover
The Province could be asked to assume responsibility for the collection and buildings since
Provincial funds have been used to acquire many of the buildings and artifacts. However,
given the current financial situation, it is unlikely that the Province would want to do this.
There are no other museums capable of assuming all of the buildings and the collection,
Some artifacts could be placed in other institutions i.e, the lamp collection, but most of the
collection is unique to Black Creek and its historical period.
Of the Municipalities, North York, Metro or Vaughan might wish to assume responsibility,
Vaughan has a heritage program and might wish to assume responsibility for the buildings
and lands north of Steeles, The North York Historical Board or Metro Parks and Culture could
be asked to consider assuming responsibility for the main part of the Village.
11.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DEUVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
AUTHORITY ACTIVITY?
Legal obligations and, ethical obligations ,in -terms of the active solicitation of donations which
have been entrusted to the Authority's care in perpetuity. Similarly with respect to
archeological resources which exist on our lands, the Authority has a legal duty of care,
Based on 1996 budget, the Village baseline costs are $875,000. In the first year of
"mothballing", the costs would be higher due to one time only site securement such as
boarding up of buildings, removal of artifacts etc, Long term storage needs would depend on
the volume of the collection that could be placed elsewhere. To store the total collection
36
f'1358/17
would require 54,000 square feet of which 22,000 is available in the Visitors Centre, Detailed
analysis is needed,
The Village Visitor Centre is used for Authority meetings, This resource would be lost since
space would be needed for storage of artifacts,
11.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DEUVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY
N/A
11.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
If the Village ceases to operate as a museum, remaining provincial grant will be lost, There
would be no revenues to speak of (perhaps some rental opportunities), Municipal levy would
be required to cover the basic costs of "mothballing" the facility at approximately the level
shown in the financial projections..
One option would be to create a reserve to support the on-going cost of storage and
maintenance. If any of the artifacts were sold, funds would go to the reserve to sustain the
rest of the stored collection and the buildings, Potential sources of funds for such a reserve
would be: transfer from existing reserves no longer needed, Le, vehicle and equipment; one
time transfer from land sales; one time contribution from municipalities
11.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTIONS?
The objective is to achieve stable, cost effective storage and protection of buildings and
artifacts.
Assumptions: That the Authority's Municipal funding partners and the Province are not
interested in assuming responsibility and no acceptable institution can be found to assume
responsibility for the entire Village.
-Archeological artifacts continue to be stored at the ROM at no cost: inventory of sites can be
maintained by existing funded staff,
11.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
I Artifacts I 1996 I 1997 I 1998 I 1999 I
Staff 357,000 357,000 357,000 357,000
Other 518,000 518,000 518,000 518,000
Total Expenditures 875,000 875,000 875,000 875,000
Operating -Revenue n/a n/a n/a n/a
Municipal Levy 875,000 875,000 875,000 875,000
11.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
. Sate, cost effective storage; no deterioration of collection: buildings maintained at
current level of repair; insurable; placement of artifacts in "good home" as time and
opportunity permits,
37
F(35'1/Q -}
MANAGEMENT OF PUBUC ASSETS
12. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
12.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Rental of Authority properties to generate a net revenue:
. Rental - generally maintains current use (ie: house, agriculture) and is considered to
be an interim use until full Greenspace potential is realized,
. Special Agreement (lease) - generally represents a compatible resource based use
(Public Use Strategy) and a change in current land use or a lease designated for lands
deemed surplus to the Authority's needs,
12.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Rental properties generate net revenue to the Authority to support watershed activities, When
the lands are needed for conservation purposes, rental homes are demolished and land
leases terminated, Until that time, there is a duty of care which is accomplished without cost,
The need for new revenue drives special agreement leases,
12.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Lands are placed under agreement with municipalities, Rental properties are turned over to
municipalities where it is appropriate to do so, In Metro Toronto, leasehold properties are
routinely turned over to Metro as part of the Management agreement i.e, Bluffers Park,
12.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
AUTHORITY ACTIVITY?
The objective is to generate revenue, These are our lands and the Authority will partner with
others as long as our objectives are met in conformity with stated policies,
12.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
When costs exceed revenues the dwelling is demolished and the lands declared open space
to minimize tax and insurance and maintenance,
Lease opportunities are handled by the Business Development Officer with support from a
variety of staff. Consultants are employed where special expertise is needed to minimize
overhead. Wherever feasible, special agreements are structured so that the proponent pays
most of the costs,
12.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES ARE BEING CONSIDERED?
See above
12.7 . WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC'DIRECTlONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUIJ,. T INTO THE PROJECTION?
Drastic reductions in provincial and municipal levy have increased the urgency of utilizing
every reasonable opportunity to generate additional revenue, The goal is to generate by
1999 an extra $225,000 annually from lease types of arrangements at appropriate sites in our
land base, A number of possibilities are under consideration but it is anticipated that the most
likely scenarios are for profit recreational activities along the lines of golf facilities, sports
complexes or similar uses, They would likely be developed with a small portion of a site
38
having a higher intensity commercial use such as a dub house or restaurant. FfblJo/q-
Assumptions: That uses acceptable to the Authority can be developed on available sites,
Delays in approving acceptable sites will impact the realization of the projected revenue,
It is also assumed that the Province will continue to permit the Authority to use revenues
from long term leases to offset costs of other Authority programs.
12.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS:
RENTALS 1996 1997 1998 1999
Revenues 850,000 729,500 730,500 730,50C
ExPenditures 554,200 548,800 554,000 560,OOC
~et (Levy Reduction) 95,800 180,700 176,500 170,5OC
!SPECIAL AGREEMENTS (Leases)
~evenues 470,000 460,000 560,000 665,ooC
~eserve contribution (44,700) 0
expenditures:
Related Legal II Property coata 70,000 75,200 75,700 76,00C
Development Staff coata 84,500 86,300 86,300 86,300
Net revenue: 270,800 298,500 398,000 502,700
rrotallew/arant reduction 366 600 479 200 574,500 673 20C
12.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
Market value is achieved for specified use, Maximization of revenue potential.
,
39
F'f3lo 1/'17
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE
40
~
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE ~f3l.o ~ /q 7
13. RECREATION - CONSERVATION AREAS
13.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Provide regional outdoor recreational opportunities to approximately 550,000 visitors a year
from across the watersheds, Consists of a variety of facilities and programs which support
activities enhanced by the greenspace setting including hiking, camping, swimming, fiShing
and picnicking, Also provides regional tourism activity in connection with major seasonal
events such as maple syrup festivals, summer music concerts and fall arts and crafts fairs,
13.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
- Increases .awareness of cultural and natural heritage resources of the watershed by drawing
visitors from urban to rural settings,
- Provides a setting and facilities for social interactions and physical activity which contribute
to overall health and well being of the community,
- Provides an efficiently run parks system for the Regions at a low net cost,
- Engenders support for the Authority and its watershed management activities by providing
the public with access to lands it has invested in,
13.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Provincial Parka
Many of the activities and facilities in Conservation Areas are similar to those found in
Provincial Parks, The demand for services currently met in the Areas could be transferred to
Provincial Parks, The supply of day use opportunities in Provincial Parks is too distant from
the GTA market to expect that customers will voluntarily transfer the demand. It is not a
realistic option for the Provincial Park system to expand by assimilating the Conservation
Areas in the GT A,
Regional Parks
Within Metro, certain activities currently experienced in Conservation Areas could be
accommodated in the Metro Parks system. Outside of Metro, the Regions of York, Peel and
Durham could establish and fund individual Regional Parks systems based on the land
holdings of the Authority. The creation of new individual Regional Parks systems outside of
Metro would constitute a major program expansion for Regional government which would be
vigorously opposed, Even if it were to occur, the duplication of management overhead in
each of the Regions would cause the sum of service delivery costs in the watershed to rise far
above what is currently experienced with the Authority assuming that function. In addition,
the Authority's personnel practices, including its non-union status, constitute a substantial
source of economy not available to the Regions.
Local Municipal Parks Departments
Authority lands could be leased to the local municipality in which they are situated and
operated by the local parks departments, The capability of local parks departments varies
widely across the watershed and the lack of financial resources of some local municipalities
would, in some instances, prevent that municipality from assuming the additional costs of
managing Authonty Conservation Areas as parks, In fact, assuming Authority properties
would, in some cases, increase the inventory of municipally managed lands several fold,
Where local municipalities would be agreeable to assuming management of Authority lands,
the properties transferred would cease to be viewed as contributing to regional objectives
and Authority watershed management objectives would no longer be a priority.
Transferring Conservation Areas to local municipalities is, however, appropriate for some
Authority properties, especially those in urbanized areas which experience significant local
41
r;:-6lP 3/q7
use. The possibility of placing properties under agreement should be explored with local
municipalities on a case by case basis.
13.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DeuVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
MTRCA ACTIVITY?
The Authority, because of its watershed jurisdiction is able to maintain a regional perspective
and offer economies of scale in its recreation operations, In addition, as noted above, the
Authority's non-unionized work force and unique combination of staff expertise and skills
provides the flexibility and resources to manage its lands efficiently for public use.
The Authority should retain ownership and control of its parks, Where commercial
opportunities exist, the Authority will develop those opportunities on its own or in partnership
with the private sector in order to generate net operating profits which can be applied against
non-revenue producing programs desired by the public, and land maintenance
responsibilities,
While financial considerations will be important in any decision making process, the extent to
which individual parks contribute to regional park objectives will be considered as well.
Criteria will be established to distinguish between regional and local parks, Where local
municipalities have the capability and interest in entering into management agreements for
local parks, we will begin discussions immediately,
13.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
This plan reduces expenditures by moving to a more seasonal operation, placing staff
resources where and when they are most needed, Beyond this, contracting out maintenance
activities will explored and where potential savings are identified, tendering will occur. Full
cost accounting principles will be applied in assessing where opportunities exist and, where
feasible, employee tenders will be encouraged,
Certain components of the Conservation Areas facilities and programs could be leased to
private, profit oriented interests (ie, Campgrounds), Short of turning all or part of park
operations over to private operators, the Authority could remain as park operators but certain
maintenance functions currently carried out by Authority staff could be contracted out to
private suppliers (ie, Grass cutting, cleaning).
Private sector operators could only be viewed as an alternative to Authority operations for
those aspects of the Conservation Areas programs that produce or could reasonably produce
a profit. Most aspects of any public park operation do not lend themselves to
commercialization, The Authority should however, investigate those instances where
alternate service delivery modes are feasible,
13.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
Program generated revenues are projected to grow from $1,9 million to almost $2.6 million
. over the three',year period through expanded retail. opportunities, fee increases, and new
program offerings. Please refer to the Financial table,
13.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Maintain 546,000 attendance level in the short term and grow attendance in the longer term
proportionate with popUlation growth in the market area
42
f='t3Co 4/'1-/
Service levels will be maintained during peak periods at the Authority's most active sites,
expenditure reductions and consequent reductions in'full time staffing will create service level
reductions in terms of curtailed Areas operations during the winter, spring and fall, and
reduced levels of maintenance on less active properties,
- Customer resistance to increased fees is not excessive,
- Manageable adverse reaction by community to increased activity levels in Conservation
Areas,
- Various planning controls do not hold up capital improvements required to provide revenue
generating services.
- Core staff available to plan, develop and implement new initiatives,
13.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Recreation 1996 1997 1998 1999
Expenditures 2,848,900 2,684,200 2,678,000 2,678,10C
Revenue
Day Use programs 1,863,300 738,800 n8,800 907,1OC
Camping n/a 593,800 623,800 663,80C
Swimming & Skiing n/a 352,000 352,000 352,OOC
Angling n/a 97,100 107,100 112,10C
Food /Stores & Misc. n/a 189,800 204,800 205,80C
Special Events n/a 242,300 267,300 317,300
Revenue Total 1,863,300 2,213,800 2,333,800 2,558,100
~ew reaulrement 983 600 470 400 344 200 120000
13.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
- Attendance and revenues adjusted to factor in effects of weather and operating season
length
- Levels of awareness of MTRCA as measured by exit interviews.
- Customer service ratings derived from visitor surveys,
" -. . . .
43
F6lD5/q7
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE
14. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE: PUBUC USE PROGRAMS
14.1 DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Operation of living museum which is a regionally significant tourist attraction drawing
approximately 200,000 visitors a year, Based on a collection of Provincially significant cultural
heritage resources including 45 heritage structures, over 50,000 artifacts and the original
homestead of an early pioneer family in the region, Management and interpretation of these
resources in order to educate the public about the significance of their cultural heritage as
well as the impact of natural resources of the nineteenth century on settlement patterns and
the economic development of Canada
14.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
-Increases awareness of cultural and natural heritage resources in the watershed and the
connection between the two,
- Preserves cultural heritage assets which typify pre-Contederation Canada and which were
relocated from throughout the region prior to their potential destruction by development
pressures,
- Creates economic spinoffs through its contribution to tourism in the region,
14.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Options could include: Metro Parks and Culture, The City of North York, Volunteer Board of
Directors independent of the MTRCA or any municipality, The Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto, or private profit-oriented operator.
The BCPV Business Plan Subcommittee of the Authority recently conducted a detailed review
of alternative operating options such as privatization, an independent operating body, other
agencies under management agreement, and status quo, It rejected alternative operating
models which involved independent Boards or private operators, In each case, it was judged
that whatever short term financial benefits might accrue from these models were negated by
longer term impacts to the resources, negative implications to the Authority, or viability of the
operation. Operation by other agencies under management agreement were also rejected
because of substantially higher cost,
With respect to Metro Parks and City of North York, previous studies of the issue have
revealed that operation of BCPV would result in a substantially higher overall cost than under
MTRCA.
Operation as a separate entity with a volunteer Board of Directors independent of the
Authority or any municipality risks viability, particularly in light of time and legislation required
to obtain charitable status, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto could assume
responsibility for the operation of the facility but such a move would put at risk the support the
Foundation provides to MTRCA programs, which is neither desirable nor productive. The site
could be turned over to a private, profit oriented operator, but it is unrealistic to expect that a
private operator could generate sufficient revenues from the facility to create an adequate
return on investment.if capital improvements to support operations and maintain the heritage
aspects of the property are included, Short term gains, mining of the asset, and destruction
of the now healthy facility would be the'likely result.
44
r=(bI.1('/'f~/
14A WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DEUVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON' OR SUPPORT OTHER
AUTHORITY ACTIVITY?
The Authority represents a mechanism for facilitating the inter-regional participation which is
required, The resources managed by the Village came originally from a wide geographic area
and today are visited by people from an even wider area. The many benefits of operating the
Village extend to communities far beyond the borders of either Metro or North York and those
communities in the region should contribute to its preservation and interpretation, As a minor
complication, some of the site is actually located in the City of Vaughan which would require
Metro or North York to maintain facilities outside their borders,
Revenue generating opportunities will be aggressively pursued and past curatorial restrictions
to new activities will be reduced in order to assist. The underlying heritage value of the assets
will, however, continue to be respected in recognition of their importance to maintaining the
authenticity of the experience offered,
BCPV also engenders support for the Authority and its watershed management activities by
providing a high profile facility and program to a wide audience,
14.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
Components of the operation of the Village could be contracted out to private suppliers (ie.
food services, maintenance, grass cutting, cleaning), There may also be opportunities to
reduce expenditures by contracting out certain management functions which will be explored
as they are identified,
14.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
In 1997 a review of retail operations is being conducted with consultants from KPMG to
identify further review opportunities, The plan already incorporates increased site generated
revenues from admissions, parking fees etc, which will increase gradually over three years.
New events and activities such as the Hot Air Balloon exhibit or a Dinner Theatre have been
added or are under consideration as new sources of revenue, Food Service net return is also
projected to improve substantially with the aggressive marketing of special functions and
offering a new venue at the Patio,
The results from the study done by the Arts and Communications Council suggest that the
potential for sponsorships is smaller than originally hoped for but the Plan still incorporates
significant growth in the membership program, Corporate sponsorships and marketing
partnerships will still be pursued but at more realistic levels,
The goal is to make the public use aspect of the operation will be substantially self funded
within three years.
Fundraising efforts in support of both capital and operating needs for the Village will be
enhanced througll the development of a distinct fundraising arm. Volunteers from the
community will be central to the success of this initiative.
45
F- I" (p / / '1 I
14.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMP110NS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
1996 1997 1998 1999
Attendance: 180,000 194,000 194,000 196,300
1997: The 100,000 paying adults included in the 1996 base are targeted to increase by 8,000
in 1997 as a result of new attractions like the Hot Air Balloon exhibit and effective marketing.
A new summer program initiative is projected to add 2,000 student visits plus another 4,000
students for the Groundwater Festival,
1998.99: An increase in admission charges is projected for 1998 and for parking fees in 1999,
In 1999 other new attractions are projected to add 2,300 more paying adults, Expenditure
changes in the projection relate to the costs of the new programing and development needed
to generate membership, sponsorship, and operating revenue,
Assumptions:
. Customer resistance to increased fees is not excessive,
- Effective fundraising committee established and operating in Year 1,
- Capital improvements to patio and Village buildings in support of revenue generating
initiatives are carried out in time for the 1997 operating season, Estimates are $50-80
thousand for the patio enclosure, Corporate sponsorship to underwrite costs are being
actively pursued at this time,
- Costumed interpretive staff are present in approximately current numbers,
- to have well maintained and preserved physical assets that will be attractive to visitors and
generate revenue that can be used to carry out our curatorial role at a level better than the
bare minimum,
14.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS:
BCPV: Public Use Programs 1996 1997 1998 1999
Expenditures 3,143,400 3,113,700 3,475,000 3,575,00C
Revenue
AdmissionslParking 637,500 720,000 780,000 800,00C
Education program 242,100 293,200 294,000 294,00C
Retail Sales / Food 1,266,900 1,408,000 1,498,000 1,578,00C
Memberships/Sponsorships 545,900 185,000 380,000 430,00C
Events, Facilities & other 106,800 144,900 223,000 243,00C
Revenue Total 2,799,200 2,751,100 3,175,000 3,345,00C
Provincial: Museum Grant 220,200 200,000 200,000 200,00C
...ew reauirement 124000 162 600 100.000 30.00C
14.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
- Attendance and revenues interpreted in context of weather and length of operating season,
- Customer service ratings derived from visitor surveys,
- Levels of awareness of MTRCA as measured by exit interviews,
- Long term preservation of cultural heritage assets,
- Level of corporate and individual donor support attracted,
46
Fr3to i/97
CORPORATE SERVICES
., . .... .. .., .. . . . .
47
r::r3(p9/'17
CORPORATE SERVICES
15. CORPORATE SERVICES
15.1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
Corporate Services includes internal activities and support services which allow for the
efficient delivery of the Authority's programs, The main activities are:
Management:
The office of the CAO and the three divisional directors, together with support staff and
resources are grouped under this category,
Corporate Secretariat:
Includes costs for Authority members and staff support directly related to the conduct of
meetings and for the preparation of agendas and minutes, as well as certain corporate
provisions for legal, insurance, and membership dues for the ACAO,
Human Resources Management
Human resources management encompasses recruitment and compensation; staff training
and development; performance management; organizational planning and auditing; legal;
health and safety,
Development Office:
The staff and administrative resources required for the management of the Authority's and
Conservation Foundation's fund raising efforts have been combined to form this unit effective
March 1, 1997,
Communications:
Communications is an internal support service provided to all business units, It consists of a
variety of activities aimed at increasing awareness of and support for Authority objectives,
Infonnatlon Technology:
The information technology group provides the following services: systems planning, local
area network support, business software application support, hardware support, systems
analysis, systems training, systems security, long distance management, voice mail support,
installation, maintenance, and automated attendant design and support,
Office Services:
Office services contribute to the efficient operation of the Authority's main office, Included in
this category are:
Equipment - purchases, rentals and maintenance
Supplies - computer supplies, stationery, etc,
Services - printing, courier, postage
Utilities - telephone, hydro, gas, water
Building\Grounds - supplies, security, maintenance contracts
Lunchroom - head office lunchroom operation
Financial Services:
Includes budget, accounting, financial management, banking and audit services, Also,
includes the costs of related computer systems, Interest earnings on cash flow balances are
associated with this category.
15.2 WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
N/A
15.3 WHAT AGENCIES BESIDE THE MTRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
N/A
15.4 WHY SHOULD THE MTRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS
ROLE OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER
AUTHORITY ACTIVITY?
48
N/A r::B 70/
15.5 WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE MTRCA TO DEUVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
Among many initiatives:
. contracting out i.e, maintenance, cleaning, payroll, computer programming and some
maintenance, security, telecommunications maintenance, legal services, some
printing, specialized human resources needs
. shared purchasing with the Province and municipalities to achieve economies of scale
. use of specialized consultants to advise on technical changes that can result in
savings i.e, GST
. investment in new technology to automate processes wherever feasible
. regular review of internal processes to determine needs and eliminate redundancies
15.6 WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
Interest earnings represent a significant source of revenue, With declining rates persisting it
will be difficult to maintain this source at historical levels, The revenue associated with the
Development Office will be generated by the Conservation Foundation. It is anticipated that
the additional cost for the Development Officer can be completely recovered from an
increased level of fund raising activities over a three year period, beginning in 1998,
15.7 WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE
BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
The service level objectives of corporate services focus on the people we employ, ensuring
they are provided a safe work environment, tools and information to effectively carry out their
responsibilities, policy and strategic direction in an environment which fosters positive public
and political support. A key assumption is that, on balance, there will be no significant
change in the volume of work undertaken within the various business units of the Authority,
Specifically, the service level objectives include:
. To plan strategically in times of diminishing resources
. Continually reassess programs to ensure they are relevant
. Create a work environment which attracts highly skilled and motivated employees
. Administer a system to effectively collect and report financial information
. Provide a safe and comfortable work environment
. Provide staff with effective technological tools as part of our information systems
strategy
. Deliver a communications strategy which demonstrates we deserve the confidence
and funding support of our traditional funding partners while seeking new sources of
revenue and which demonstrates accountability to the community, government, and
others who contribute financially or otherwise have an interest in the work of the
Authority
. Deliver effective performance measurement
1997: Reassignment of staff together with reduction in management personnel have
significantly reduced the cost of the management function. The Development Office is a new
Corporate Service category, reflecting the consolidation of fund raising efforts between the
Authority and the Conservation Foundation, The increased expenditures for Information
technology will improve the productivity of staff and enable them to carry on with reduced
clerical support,
It is assumed that no major changes will occur in the businesses supported by Corporate
Services, For example, if the volume of transactions diminishes the need for services will
decrease proportionately,
49
Fr;71/q7
15.8 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Corporate Services 1996 1997 1998 1999
CAO / Divisional 560,200 482,700 482,700 482,70C
Management & Support
Corporate Secretariat 202,450 188,100 196,800 199,60C
Development Office 235,500 276,800 276,80C
Communications 336,500 347,500 347,500 347,50e
Human Resources / Safety 227,050 247,200 232,200 234,70e
lefflee Services 531,300 525,400 534,000 539,80e
nformation Technology 206,700 276,200 246,200 295,90e
~inaneial Services 508,700 498,600 483,900 486,90C
Total Operating 2,572,900 2,801,200 2,800,100 2,863,90C
expenditures
Revenue 350,000 596,900 521,800 531,80C
...evy/Grant Requirement 2,222,900 2,204,300 2,278,300 2,332,10C
Capital
Head Office Renovation 450,000 150,000 50,000 50,00C
Total Capital expenditures 450,000 150,000 50,000 50,ooe
Capital -Revenue 0 0 0 e
-Other 450,000 150,000 50,000 50,00e
CaDltal -Lew/Grant 0 0 0 e
15.9 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Corporate services as a proportion of total Authority capital and operating expenditures
continues to be approximately 7%,
SO