HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance and Business Development Advisory Board Appendices 1998
.. FB\ /q~
~
. , THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATIO~ AUTHORITY
1998 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
AND
1998 - 2000 BUSINESS PLAN
.
As submitted to the Authority,
. Meeting #3/98, April 24, 1998.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE
F~A~
1998 BUDGET, OPERATING AND CAPITAL
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS
History of the Business Plan Approach
In October of 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 targets
for revenue and expenditures.
In creating the Business Plan, the Authority is assuring its funding partners that we can:
. deliver the services and programs to meet 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.
The key assumptions and principles built into the 1997-1999 Business Plan are:
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 associated with our 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 become substantially self-
supporting over the three year term of the Plan through revenue generating activities.
199B Budget, Operating and Capital
The 1998 Budget carries on the assumptions and principles contained within our approved three
year Business Plan. The objective remains to preserve important watershed management
programs by replacing lost tax revenue with new sources wherever possible. We continue to
look for efficiencies in program delivery in order to hold the line on expenditures but we have also
selectively increased expenditures where it is prudent to do so in order to increase revenues or
to enhance key services.
As in 1997, the 1998 Budget is based on the Authority's commitment to meet the budget targets
of our municipal funding partners.
In 1998, in order to accommodate the targets of our funding partners, gross expenditures have
decreased by about $250 thousand. This is attributable primarily to a reduction in property taxes
coming out of a new Provincial method for determining assessments. On top of the ambitious
1997 targets, program generated revenues are projected to go up a further $200 thousand in
1998.
A new initiative of note is the consolidation of our marketing and fundraising resources under one
Director in order to maximize our effectiveness in these activities.
With more than one year of experience in implementing our Business Plan, indications are that
we are on track having met most of our revenue targets. We continue to refine our approach as
we gain more experience. We anticipate that in the fall of 1998 we will significantly update our
Business Plan as we plan for 1999 and beyond.
l=e~/q,
COMPARISON OF REVENUE SOURCES 1993 -1999 ASSUMING
IMPLEMENT A TION OF 1997 - 1999 BUSINESS PLAN
~"""~~_~ ; J H;;:IIJ: I 1_~:IV"~r> >>:-Vl"""1iN :nXUaUUIH HI I DilC...',
~ I
~
~ ...._......_--_........~ $8,599 (40.3%) ~
~. . r- MUNICIPAL LEVY I
~ ! 1993 ~
~
~ :~ ;; ::;I$$>.~~ ~
. ~ I
~ $3,593 (16.9%)
~ GRANT
~ I
I
~ \~ $9,140(42.8%) I
~
~
~ REVENUE
~
! !
! ~
')":1 HH rr ~ ..<<u".. u u: n I rnaHurnJ
I 1996 I
$7,763 (39.4%)
;-MUNICIPAL LEVY
$1,701 (8.6%)
GRANT
-
I 1999 I
,..--_.$6.819 (33.6%)
/ / MUNICIPAL LEVY
-
~
, THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
t=a&f/qi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I Page
1998 Budget 1
1998 Municipal Levy
Operating and Capital Comments 3
Basis of Apportionment Municipal Levy 1998 6
1998 Levy Apportionment 8
Organization Chart 11
Complement 11
1997 - 1999 Business Plan Financial Summary 13
SECTION II
1998 - 2000 Business Plan
.
- -
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
-. - - -
~~s/q~
SECTION I
II Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace I
------
P.ge 1 of 2
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
1998 BUDGET: OPERA TING & CAPITAL (WITH 1997 COMPARA TlVES) IN BUSINESS PLAN FORMA T
OPERATING ..- ..--. - --- '199iBudijet-'- -- -.--. ...--- - 1998 Budget - 1997 Actual
. - ---BUsINesS COMPi5~Nfs-- - - - c"":; -- -- P;;;g~--'- 0,;;;;-- H;~ i_, - -GTciiiu Program -o~ - ilPi: Levy! - Cross I'n>/1rom Orller Nor: Lwyl
& ACTIVITIES E~ndtru,.. R_ Soulns CIOn! EXp'endlfures Revenue Sources Gran! Ellpend/fulU Row,... Sou~o' c,."r
--------------.--.-..-...----- -'i' -----I --u..,---....i----- .. - 'S _"_u_ f $ T'- -',-"---, , ,
WAT~RSHeO HEAl.TH
WAT.EBSHEDJ'LANNLNQ
1) Watershed Slratl!gll~s 674 400 ]J~ 000 ~39 400 778.000 195,000 583,000 782.~96 26,06.Il 295,059 461,470
2) Resource MOllltonng 869300 50 000 OBOO 680 SOD 846,200 50,000 60,000 746,200 639.960 6~,240 44,095 13O,62S
3) Educalton
a) Conservalton FIeld Centres , 776600 1 3J6 200 450.500 fIO.l00 1,872,100 1,385,600 627,700 (41,200 U68626 1.166.146 51,496 10,366
b) Kortnght Cl!nlre ,,)4 200' 706200 '06000 322000 1,208,700 726,300 76,500 406,900 '.205,94~ 652.613 95,674 451,646
4) Flood Warning 216400 276400 236,000 236,000 114 204 114.204
----493:1900. :1091.00 --'oJOooo----;610500 '-4,9'41;000 '2,161,900--848,200 -1',930,900 -- 4,69;ill-25'0.616 466,m ',694.m
LAND USE PLANNINQ sERVICES -. -' . .. - -----.. - -..---.--------- - .-.- - -.--- ---------
5)Advlsory/TechntcaICll!arance I 641600 '65000 "76001 618,300 300,000 318,300 636584 0600 903 622061
b) PermdllnglCompl.anct' MondolV1g '09 600 ;'00 000 509 600 806,800 200,000 606,800 637.029 266,668 J66,141
, . . ... .. ... .. - - - - - -- ---.------ --- -- . -- -- ---..----.---- ----~
I 1m 400 )1;5000 _ 967400 . ~,4.25,~00 ,_ __50~~000 _._ ....._ ___ _ _ _ 9~5,!.0~ I.!!~ 6~ __.262,468____. 903 990,223
REGENERATION I
61 PrOject o..~'gn & Impll!menlahon . IIQ 900 417i 400 390 SOD 310700 1.187,600 432,600 400,600 354,600 . 600 ~10 162219 , 061, '05 311,225
-. 1 -. - - - . -. -- ---.. - - - - -... - --. --- -- - . -- . --.-
. 110 _ 4119 400 3!oO SOD 310700: 1,187,600 432,600 400,600 354,600 1600570 162,239 '.061.105 11',225
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS . . ...... -- . - -- .-- . - .. - no - -.... --- -- -- .-.-.-----.
Land Managl!ml!nl
8) Property St'MCI!S 1107 600 1207 600 874,600 874,500 ',266,905 1.266,905
9) CA Land Managl!ml!nl 60"00 601700 582,100 582,100 622.620 CO) 6,966 611,63'
10lWall!r Managl!ment Structurl!S "5900 125900 101,600 101,600 111.146 111,146
111 BCPV Infraslructurl! 6'5000 675000 875,000 7,600 867,600 681.513 96' 24,ll1 656.429
121 BUSlnl!ss Dl!velopml!nt 110300 1169500 1419200 706,700 1,158,000 (451,300 1J5.665 1,165.620 (430,115
3590.500 1 '69500 ..; 40' 000 3,139,9illi - 1,165;500--'- ---'1 ,974,400 3,624.076 '.166.16' 13,121 2.424,116
WATeRStfelLexPERleNCE -.." .. ----------------- -------
131 Recrl!atlon Programs 1664200 2213600 0 470400 2,769,200 2,458,600 310,600 2.133.394 2.259.613 5,950 461.621
14) BCPV Programs 3063500 1615900 J05 000 162600 3,123,800 2,636,300 63,000 354,500 3. '95,266 2,349.661 29'.961 551.645
b) Marl<l!ling & Oevelopmenllnlalrves 12,000 322,100 (310,100
- -- 5167100" ;'829.,00 - - 305000 - -- 6n999 -5,905,000'-- 5;094,900 ---385,100--- 355,000 5.926,619 4,609,3OJ 291.911 1,021,466
Veh,cle&Equ,pment(Nl!tl .~~. :~~~:~~.~.~__~=:.=-~_~_.~_ __~ ~~_~-__-=--~_=--=:=-=-=---==::::=~==jl-- 116,4:16 0 95.l26 13,310
W~RIlIE.HlM~~
a) Manageml!nl SeMCes 462100 462.100 513,900 613,900 469,043 313,636 165,205
b) Corporale Secrl!larial '68 '00 168.'00 177,900 177,900 196624 196.624
cl Developmenl OlIice 235500 216 900 '6.600 242,000 242,000 191.449 '91,449 0
d) Communications 347 500 341._ 352,300 352,300 324,456 2.152 2.154 320,'50
el Human Rl!sources/ Safely 147 200 30 000 2\1200 235,700 11,000 224,700 226.055 90 21.019 196,666
f) OlIice SeMCI!S 525 400 525.400 536,800 536,800 570.161 ',542 966 581.639
g) Information Technology 116200 276200 249,500 249,500 261,962 6251 2791J1
h) Financial Services __ __~~_ . _35O~_.____.___._1.~:~ __~_85,8~~....-.350,O~.__ ___ .. ~~,!!P.!! _._~~.~!_ 21J,691._______225~~ .....
280' 200 350 000 246900 2.204,JOO 2,793,900 250,000 253,000 2,290,900 2,167,2J6 217,66' 553.751 1,955,191 · I
CorporaleSeMCl!s % or Tolal Budget --'-10;' - -. -- .---- - -- ---"26% --.. ..... "70%'---.---.--..----. --. "-""J6'4 ------83...------.-- .-- -_. 112'4 @
OPERATING TOTAL r 19.~:.=- -~:~--~059 :--~~~6~~ . ~~92,50~~04 800 1 886 900- . ~-,~O,800' ---20.2,:~1--_;~~=-:.5:~:4~--~~ ~
MNR Trans!l!r Payment 936,000 715,900 '.241.3)]........
Rougl! Pari< Levy 0 251,615 167,743 83,872 ~
MUniCIpal Levy 7.410,900 7,114,900 1,453,026 ....
o...rallngo.flclt/(SurpIUs)---~--==-~=-=------ ___~==- _--- __ _._--..J.!~!-~..:'. ~
-n
~
~
t:P
Page 2 of 2
TORONTO AND REGION CONSER VA nON AUTHORITY
1998 BUDGET: OPERA TING & CAPITAL (WITH 1997 COMPARA TIVES) IN BUSINESS PLAN FORMA T
CAPITAL --- 1997 B~~t- ~-~-= 1998 Preliminary Estimates 1991 Actual
BUSINESS'COMPONENTS Gruu Pn>gtwn Or_ Nol: l,.".,1 Gross Program O/her N~/: bvyl Gross Pn>grom OfMr Nol: l,.".,1
& ACTIVITIES --- -.. -- -- !~II~~,_!,!'!'-..___ ,sou,!," __ . ,GTM.', _ Ex".n.!'!"!!~!.._~~'y!"E.__u~'!'!!!'~~ ___~,!n!_. .~~ruru_..!!...~~s~~~.~
-----.- -- -- --- - - -
I I I I S S S S I I I I
WATJ:RSHED PLANNING
I) Walershed Straleg'e5 (Walerfronll 100 000 100 000 84,600 84,600 &2978 62.976
2) Resource Monotorrng (Wal..rfronll : III 000 III 000 121,900 . 121,900 III 408 III 406
RE;GENERATION
6) Regenerahon Cap'lal PrOfecls
Walerfront Regeneration ! H"ooo 100 000 200 000 2 "'000 3,653,100 50,000 115.000 2.828,700 2 ,], IS2 '" 867 ',273 2.404.'92
Eloblcoke Motel SU'p I 1100000 I 0'0 000 I 050 000 2,100,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 2 OS7 21& 18380) 1.108.9SG 9'4.841
I 1,141,400 410,000 1,271,400
MeUo RAP I I 691 500 1010 ]00 622 200 890.0'7 SIl.SOO 2'7,028 574."9
Valley & Shorel.ne Regen 1 490 000 I 490 000 1,151,900 200,000 1,551,900 1 269,301 26021 1,241.281
Flood Control ; 44.]29 44,14] 1414
T oronlo Islands I 70000 J5000 ], 000 327 327 (0
Brrckworks 2 ]" 000 I 7]0 000 625000 188,000 150,000 38,000 1.309.719 300 1.700,26& &09.133
Arsenal Lands Remed,ahon 4 600 000 1 SOO 000 2 ]00 000 4,800,000 2,600,000 2,300,000 & '39 1.166 ',373
---- - ----. - - - - , -- . --- '14,2'35,00ii-''''-' 50;0005;749,850 ' 8,435,150
n ]61 500 100 000 6 58' 300 6 697 200 9.113.240 207.493 3.116,607 '.769,140
7) Land Acqu,srt,ons & DIsposals ] 900 000 2.500.000 I 400.000 4,650,000 3,250,000 1,400,000 3.4&4.9S& 3,S43, n3 176,197
WM~O_];Xp~B~Nr;;f
Public Use Infrastructure Projects 53' 000 2& 7 SOO 267.SOO 1,135,000 967,600 167,600 412,790 38,195 129,896 244,897
CQBe.QBM~EBYJ~J;,S
Adminlstratrve Office ISG.OOO no 000 200,000 60,000 150,000 3,9&3 3,9&3 10
---- ---- ----.._---- ----
CAPITAL TOTAL 20 176 SOO 2.7SG ll!! _--..!l~.;.8!!!--2- m.~oo ~~3~~~.Q 3,~50,OOO 8,2.,!i7,350 8t!!~~ _.13.175,3~~6M 8,793,420 8,13&,224
MNR Transfer Payment )25.000 850,000 109,626
Munic.!E."1 L~_ .____ ___ 8 8SG.700 _!'!~!I'~~ -~,~~
C~.!.t~~~e_n~~'-Surplus!_____.__ ___, 0 0 .... -~~
.----. -- ..--- -- - . - ---- ._- -- ------. --" --- --~ -- ... - .. .---- ----- -- -.---- .--- -" -" --
Page 3
199B MUNICIPAL lEVY
The municipal share of expenditures included in the 1998 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 Municipal Affairs. As a result of the changes to the taxation of property in Ontario, DEA data is not available for 1998. A regulation
approved by the Province directs Conservation authorities to continue using DEA figures applicable for 1997.
As required by the Conservation Authorities Act, the levy attributable to administration costs is distributed on the basis of discounted equalized
assessment. Further, regulations require conservation authorities to levy an amount equal to the level of provincial grants, known as the
"matching levy". As of April 15, 1998 the Province had not announced the 1998 grant allocations. The budget assumes these grants will total
$715,900 and, therefore, the matching levy has been tentatively set at this amount.
Also, the Regional Municipalities of Durham, Peel and York are levied an amount equal to 100% of the 1997 taxes paid by the Authority on
revenue-producing properties within these municipalities. Within the City of 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 Authority 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.
~
00
""
~
-n
CP
Page 4 .D
1998 MUNICIPAL lEVY - CAPITAL ~
.J,)
The municipal share of expenditures on Authority capital projects is financed as a Capital levy on member municipalities a,s designated in cA
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:
Greenspace 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 5-year
$1,500,000. ($300.000 annually) project. Municipal funding is apportioned on the basis of City of 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 1998 and the $2,000.000 budgeted expenditure will be funded from land sale revenues and other non levy sources.
lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project in the City of 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. Since 1996 there has been little or no funding from the Province while Metropolitan Toronto agreed to continue
funding the project. Expenditures of approximately $3.6 million have been budgeted for 1998 based on the assumptions that staff are
successful in accessing grants from other provincial and federal programs.
Project for Valley and Shoreline Regeneration in the City of Toronto. 1997 - 2001
The 1997 - 2001 Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project consolidates all similar remedial works on the waterfront and river valleys. The
Authority adopted 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 five years and to designate the City of Toronto as the benefitting municipality. Gross expenditures in 1998
are $1.7 million which assumes that $300,000 of Provincial funding will be obtained as well as a further $200 thousand from non-levy
sources.
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Implementation Project. 1995 - 1999 Within the City of Toronto
This project was approved in 1995. The Project supports regeneration efforts of erosion and sediment control. as well as habitat enhancement
and creation. The City of Toronto is designated as the benefitting municipality. Annual levy contributions are $500.000. The annual project
expenditure level was originally set at $1.500.000. However. as a result of reduced funding from the Province this target may not be
achievable. The City of Toronto levy is matched with federal, provincial, donations and other sources of funding.
Page 5
1998 MUNICIPAL lEVY - CAPITAL CONT'D...
Public Use Infrastructure Project, 1998
-
The 1998 budget provides $335,000 for conservation area, heritage and education development projects. The municipal share, set at 50%,
has been provided for in the levy.
Project for Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park (Revised March 19931
The Etobicoke Secondary 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 shadng of costs by the Province, the former City of Etobicoke and the Authority. The Authority's share is funded
equally by the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto. In 1998, $2,100,000 is budgeted.
Arsenal lands Remediation ( Project for the Acquisition of the Canada Post Property 1
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% City of Toronto ($4,500,0001
. 25 % Regional Municipality of Peel ($4,500,0001
All of the Provincial funding and some municipal funds have been applied towards the acquisition of the property which was completed in
1992. In 1998, 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 1998 budget to $4.8
million.
."
cg
0
~
00
Page 6
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT - MUNICIPAL LEVY -1998 -n
~
BASED ON 1997 DISCOUNTED EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT FIGURES"
,...
""""'-
MUNICIPALITY DISCOUNTED .t. OF DISCOUNTED TOTAL POPULATION ~
EQUALIZED MUNICIPALITY EQUALIZED POPULATION IN
ASSESSMENT IN AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
--- IN WATERSHED
- --------- $(000'5) $(000'5)
Township of AdJala-TosoronUo 285,557 4 11,422 8,896 356
Durham, Regional Municipality of 6,217,810 . 5,186,322 144,259 120,598
City of Toronto 139,339,660 100 139,339,660 2,183,655 2,183,655
Mono Township 322,788 5 16,139 5,980 299
Peel, Regional MunIcIpality of 48,454,236 . 20.392,155 753,116 327,482
York, Regional Municipality of _ _ ... ~!,O!~~~~_ . ___~,~9,612 _ 419,54.Q ._. 369,733
-=~,,~?J,k~~?~ _ 198,33~~311 3,515,446 3,002,123
A.NAI:i~!$_ Q.E RI;J;I.PN~L..MU.NICIF>M,ITIE$_.
Durham, Regional Municipality of
Ajax, Town of 2,329,748 86 2,003,584 58,854 50,614
Pickering, Town of 3,215,799 95 3,055,009 70,733 67,196
Uxbrldge Township 672,263 19 127,730 14,672 2,788
-------- .
_~,_=.".-A?..17..l!UQ.. 5,186,322 144,259 120,598
Peel, Regional Municipality of
Brampton, City 13,044,025 63 8,217,736 236,319 148,881
Mlsslssauga, CIty of 33,187,259 33 10,951,796 480,170 158,456
Caledon, Town of __ __~222,95~ 55 1,222,624 36,627 20,145
== 48,45_~~6_ 20,392,155 753,116 327 ,482
. York, RegIonal Municipality of
Aurora, Town of 2,135,601 4 85,424 30,392 1,216
Markham, Town of 12,879,438 100 12,879,438 151,518 151,518
Richmond Hili, Town of 7,022,340 99 6,952,117 85,970 85,110
Vaughan, Town of 12,245,285 100 12,245,285 116,360 116,360
Whltchurch-Stouffvllle, Town of 1,404,421 43 603,901 17,796 7,652
King Township __~385,43~ 45 623,447 17-,~q4_____!..!877
37,O72,5~ 33,389,612 41.!!540 369,733
.. As provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
1998 LEVY APPORTIONMENT
< - GENERAL LEVY - >
DISCOUNTED NON- RECREATION -
EQUALIZED RECREATION OPERATION &
MUNICIPALITY . ASSESSMENT PROPORTIONATE MAINTENANCE,
IN WATERSHED FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
"-- -... .. - -- -- - ..-.-.- ---..... -- $(O.OO's).- -- -- -- -- - ---------- ---
ADJALA- TOSORONTlO 11.422 0.00576-/. 0.00576-/_
DURHAM
Ajax 2.003.584
Pickering 3,055,009
Uxbrldge 127/30
5,186,322 2.61493"1. 3.19956"1_
CITY OF TORONTO 139,339,660 70.25459% 60.69156-/.
MONO 16,139 0.00814"1_ 0.00814-/_
PEEL
Brampton 8,217.736
Mlsslssauga 10,951,796
Caledon .._.. _ _~ ,2~2!~24_
20,392,155 10.28166-/_ 16.29773"1_
YORK
Aurora 85,424
Markham 12,879,438
Richmond 6,952,117
Vaughan 12,245,285
Whitchurch - Stouffvllle 603,901 ~
King _..____ 6_2~,~~?_
_m ~~,~~9,611_ 16.83493-/. 19.79725-/_
- ----_.-- .---- ------ .------------- ~
___ ~98.335,311 =.=~=J.~~.~_00QO-4 ~~~0~9~-!!..
:is
~
.
~
~
-.....
Page 8 ~
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
APPORTIONMENT OF 1998 LEVIES
GENERAL PROGRAMS & CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY
<- 1998 GENERAL LEVY -> 1998 1998 1997 1997
NON- RECREA nON - TOTAL NEW: CAPITAL GRAND PERATING Operating GRAND
RECREATION TAX OPERATIONS & GENERAL ROUGE PROJECTS TOTAL LEVY INCL. Change TOTAL
LEVY ADJUST MAINTENANCE _ _~~Y'!'__PA~~_t _._ Page9.. J~~ AX ADJUST 98/97 LEVY
.~ - <----- ------------
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ % $
ADJALA- TOSORONTlO 384 17 401 5 11 417 401 0 0.0% 412
DURHAM 247,437 28.004 9,503 284,944 2,193 53,989 341,126 284,944 0 0.0% 338,937
TORONTO 4,114,008 180,254 4,294,262 58,924 4,754,660 9,107,846 4,590,262 (296,000) -6.4% 10,046,878
MONO 540 24 564 7 9 580 564 0 0.0% 572
PEEL 1,099,201 28,090 48,404 1,175,695 8,623 27,300 1,211,618 1,175,695 0 0.0% 1,203,013
YORK __~~~~,CLO_~. .._}.?.L.~2_8______ .__. 58.}9_B _.1..!.3~9!C!~.~_ 14,120 33,1.61__ 1,406,315 1 359 034 0 0.0% 1,392,218
6,729,578 88,322 297,000 7,114,900 83,872 4,869,130 12,067,901 7,410,900 (296,000) -4.0% 12,982,030
LEVIES ON HAND 3,090,020 3,090,020
0 0 0
-----.----------- ---- .----- ----
6,729,578 88,322 297,000 7,114,900 83,872 7,959,150 15,157,921 7,410,900 (296,000) -4.0% 12,982,030
=--~..;...~-:==-=-=-=-:-==:~_-:~==-::~_~__..~_ ~ ':_-:.:-=::~=-.=- .=-:--:-- -::.~:::=-== :"-=--==:--===-::'=.:=-~.7 -==-:-- ~::====-==-_ _--:_________ u_=--=--.=..::....___ __u_______
Page 9
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
APPORTIONMENT OF 1998 CAPITAL PROJECT LEVIES
CANADA WATERFRONT ETOBICOKE VALLEY & REMEDIAL PUBLIC
POST REGENERA TION MOTEL SHORELINE ACTION USE INFRA- TOTAL
MUNICIPALITY PROPERTY PROJECT STRIP REGENERA TION PLANS STRUCTURE
- ----..
$ $ $ $ $ $ $
ADJALA- TOSORONTIO 11 11
DURHAM 48,630 5,359 53,989
TORONTO 0 2,000,000 823,000 1,200,000 630,000 101,660 4,754,660
(See Note)
MONO 9 9
PEEL 27,300 27,300
YORK 33,161 33,161
~._-- - - - - _ .._n. __ . _~.____ _._u_~_________.
LEVY INVOICED 0 2,048,630 823,000 1,200,000 630,000 167,500 4,869,130
LEVIES
ON HAND 2,300,000 312,220 227,000 51,900 198,900 0 3,090,020
0
RECEIVABLE 0
-
LEVY BUDGET 2,300,000 2~360.850 1.05Q...000 1,251.900 ~28,900 167,500 7,959,150
OTHER FUNDING 2,500,000 2,949.350 1,050,000 200,000 912,500 967,500 8,767,350
PROVINCIAL 0 550,000 0 300,000 0 0 850,000
- - --- ---------------------- -------- -- ------- ."
TOTAL COST 4,800,000 5,860,200 2,100,000 1,751,900 1.7 41 ,400 1,135,000 17,576,500 €
.s:
--
Note: The Toronto figure includes $700 thousand to be contributed by the former City of Etobicoke. ~
04
..
~
-."
Page 10 ~
~
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
APPORTIONMENT OF 1998 LEVIES
MA TCHING AND NON-MATCHING LEVIES
._..__.~_. -- .. --- . .--. - -- r -- . --.. -....-. -.-. - -. -- --------------.----- --.--.- ------- ------
MATCHING NON-MATCHING TOTAL OP. NON-MA TCHING TOTAL
I. LEVY. OP. LEVY LEVY CAPITAL LEVY LEVY
$ - - -- .-- - - ---$--------H-------S--------------S--- ----
I $
ADJALA- TOSORONTIO 41 360 401 11 412
I
DURHAM 18,720 266,224 284,944 53,989 338,933
TORONTO 502,954 3,791,308 4,294,262 4,754,660 9,048,922
MONO 58 506 564 9 573
PEEL 73,606 1,102,089 1,175,695 27,300 1,202,995
YORK 120,521 1,238,513 1,359,034 33,161 1,392,195
---
7151~QO ___~39~000 __~j.14,900 4,869,130 _ ___1.1~84, 030
-- __=-____-__~_=---------- _~__=-_=r__===__=_~- _ J:-=-
· Based on preliminary-estimates of provincial funding.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY STAFF STRUCTURE
AUTHORITY f---
THE CONSERVATION
'--- FOUNDATION OF
GREATER TORONTO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICERI
SECRETARY-TREASURER
I I I I
DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR,
FINANCE & BUSINESS WATERSHED CORPORATE MARKETING AND
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT
* Budget & Accounting * Watershed Specialists * Communications * Market Positioning €
* Business Develo~ment * Plan Review * Education * Revenue Development
* Property / Asset anagement * Environmental Services * Human Resources e
* Black Creek Pioneer Village * Resource Science * Corporate and Customer Services
* Information Systems * Conservation Areas ""
* Enforcement A
04
02/98
.
-r1
Page 12 CiJ
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY :J
..........
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ..D
dJ
FULL TIME COMPLEMENT
1994 1997 Vacancies as of Jan. 1, 1998
Approved Complement Approved Complement Dec. 31, 1997 less Vacancies
CAG's Office 20 8 2 6
Finance and Business 74 61 15 46
Development
Watershed 133 138 27 111
Management
Corporate Services 27 35 5 30
TOTAL 254 242 49 193
FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS
(Based on 1,900 hours per year)
1990 1994 1995 1996 1997
431 374 374 359 358
Page 13
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
1998 - 2000 OPERA T1NG '" CAPITAL IN BUSINESS PLAN FORMA T
OPERATING -------- -"1998 Budget ---.- -- -- --- 1999 Projected Estimates --_.-- 2000 Projected Estimates
B S NESS COMPONENrs-- Gross -- Program- - . Orher - - ir.;,"L.vyl Gross -- Pro<j';;;- orhe, Not: L"""J Gross Pro<jrom --- orhe, Nor: LovyJ Post 9710 2000
& ACTIVITIES Exeendlruru Revenue Sources Granr EltpMdltu,u Rownw $ou~.. Oran' Exp.ndltu,.. R_. $ou~.. GrM' CHANGE: NET
.-----.-..-------.- -- S ------.S -. -'-, ..-.--- f --. ..-i----, i---S-- ---S--- -,----,-- I S
WATERSlfEO Hf;A(.m
WALm~HED1LANNINQ
1) Wate,shed Sl'ategles 778,000 195,000 583,000 m 900 23S.OOO 716900 1,IS2.100 23S.000 917,100 377,700
2) Resource Momtonng 846,200 50,000 50,000 746,200 910700 60,000 SO,OOO aoo,700 910,700 60,000 SO 000 aOO,700 119,900
31 Educallon
a)ConsetvaloonF,eldCenlres 1.872,100 1,385,600 527,700 (41,200 la72100 1.38S6OO 141,200 l,an,100 1,3aS,600 (41,200 (J 1.1 00
b) Korl/lghl Cenlre 1,208,700 726,300 75,500 406,900 1,229 JOO 912.000 70.100 221.200 '244 300 912 000 71100 201.200 (120,aOO
4) Flood Warn,ng 236,000 236,000 236000 236,000 236,000 236,000 (42,400
-'4,~.4.1.~00 --2; 161.~Oti:.- .. '8~i1-:20o. _~,930',~lio ~~T~~-_~2_~S~6OC!~.~~~~~=~:t ~~~ -=-_5.~S,!00=-:~" ~4.~7"~~___....?~~11J,aoo 303,300
,LAND. USE P.LANNING SERVICES , I
IS) Advtsory' TechnICal Clearance I 618,300 300.000 318,300 I 6S2l00 300000 3S23OO 702300 347400 3S4,900 1122 900
Ib1 Perm,n'ng!Comphance Mon"nllng I. 1,:~::~~~ ~~~:~~~ :~::;~~ -: Ji.~;: - -3~~ ~ -: ~ ~ ~=-:~ :~_; _ ~_;.::;,;~_:~J~:~ ~~~_-=------ :~~:: (~,3j~
,REGENERATION ,
16) PrOJect Oes'gn & Impleml"nlahon I 1,187,600 432,500 400,600 354,500 "a7 600 _~~~~~. ..~ ~_. .._ ~~ ~ _ !_'!~~Ol! ____m,'~. ~ooooo lS4.SOO ~~
l 1,187,600 432,500 400,600 364,500 , 11a7 ~ . _ _m:'~. _..oo,~_ __ _3_SO;~ ..n'~a~~~ ___ ..!?3c'-llC!_.._~'ooo _ 3S4,SOD _ 43,800
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS
Land Managemenl
8) Properly Sel\llces I 874,600 874,500 664000 aa4000 901000 901,000 1378,600
9) CA Land Management I 682,100 582,100 S82 100 SS2'00 662.100 682,100 aO,400
10) Waler Managemenl Sl,UCIU'l"S 101,600 101,600 10.600 10'600 101600 101,600 (24,300
11) BCPV Infraslructure 876,000 7,600 867,500 a7SOOO a87.SOD 97SOOO 967,SOO 92,SOO
12) BuslIIess Development 706,700 1,158,000 (451,300 726700 1,376.300 (649.600 730,200 1,441.800 1711,600 (232,400
_ ~,_~ 39~900 1 !_166,500 ':.. ___ _1 !9!~,~~0 _ -:=i,6! i:'~ ~ ~.~~~ JOO ~~---- --,'.785:600 - - 3,389,900 1.441.800 -. 1.940,600 (460,400
WArEBSHED__EXE./;RlcNCE
\3) Reerealoon Programs 2,769,200 2,458,600 310,600 2739900 2,4sa,600 2al3OO 2,669,SOO 2.S37.600 1l1,9OO (l38,SOO
14) BCPV Programs 3,123,800 2,636,300 63.000 364,500 ll31.8OO 2.890 200 200 000 247,600 3.~SS,aoo 3,149,200 200,000 '06,600 (S6,ooo
b) Mar1<ellllg & Developmenllnl3lives f---.!~'~~- _... _ __ __._. ~22,100. __!~1~,!!!Q. __~~.____3e9,400 1361400 37,000 4S2,100 (415.100 (415,100
5,905,000 5,094,900 385,100 355,000 610S/00 S.348,6OO SS9,400 157.SOO 6,162.300 S,686.8OO 6S2,100 (176,600 (809,599)
Vehicle & EqUipment (Net) .. ---..0-....---.-. .-.----- --. - -- . . Ii ..--- -0--- ------0 0 0 (0
f-----h---- ____.____._____ _....___n_ __
HJ.J;J)~~fRV1~~
a) Management SelVlCes 513,900 513,900 SOl,900 503 900 S13,900 S13,9OO 31.200
b) Corporate Seerelanal 177,900 177,900 176,600 17a.600 179.100 179.100 (9.000
c) Developmenl OIlice 242,000 242,000 260,000 260 000 27a,OOO 278,000 (18.600
d) Communrcaloons 352,300 352,300 3S23OO 3S2,3OO 352,300 3S2,300 4.800
e) Human Resources I Safely 235,700 11,000 224,700 236 100 236 100 236, '00 236.100 18.900
f) OIlice Services 536,800 536,800 SS0200 SSO,200 SS7,SOO SS7,SOO 32,100
g) Information Technology 249,500 249,500 492.000 240000 252000 2S2OOO 252,000 (2~.200 .."
hI FtnancialSeMces ~_~~~,!o.~__. ~5!,OOO. _____ _ _ ?3~,~~0 __ 4as.ODD ____ ..!SO.ooo __..E..SOOO ____ m,~ _ _______h _!~.~ _ m,soo __~9OO ~
~,;!.'!!'_ 25~o.O_0__ .}~3,_00~ .~!~_O,~!!~_ ._3.!68..00_____._ 7SO,~__ .2,3~a:~ __ _J!.~2.:~____.. _ m;ooo_ ._2~24.400 _....!20,100 V'"
Corporate SeMces %01 TolalBudilel _.!.~__ _ ___________.____~ 95% ___...!.72~ .____~~~_ ____n._u___ ___ __-,~.a~ __..____ ,
OPERATING TOTAL 19.392,500 9,604,800 1,886,900 7,~00 20.206.300 10,015.600 2.095,SOO 7,m.6OO ~!2.9OO '!!,S26,700 1,!36,200 7.S~6OO 812,100 ~
MNR Transfer Paymenl 715,900 715.900 715.900 1220.100 ^
Rouge Par1< levy 251,615 167,743 83,872 251.615 167,743 83,872 251.615 167.743 83,872 a3,en --
Mumcipallevy ___ 7,114,900 6,818.900 .___..__ 6,818,900 ___~~~ ~
~"'-'"ng Denclt/lSurplus! 0 __._.!' ______________~ __._, -
.
~
Page 14 ~
......
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVA TlON AUTHORITY ~
1998 -1000 OPERA TlNG "CAPITAL IN BUSINESS PLAN FORMA T
CAPITAL ---199iiPreiiminary Estimates -- ---.-- 1999 Projected Estimates 2000 Projected Estimates -
I___-"U"N:~~~~~':S _ _ ~xp::r_;- Program Ocher Net: Levyl Grou Program Orl>>r He,: l-r' Grou Program Orher Ho,: Lrvr'
Revenue Source. Grant Exp.nd/ru,.. R...,.".. SOUtTU C,.,., EKJWndlturws Rf'WIXM Sourc.s aranr
S ..... ... n S - -. _...n - S -- i -----i---- .. .-. - ---- i -----. - - i ---- . , , ,
WATERSHED PLANNINQ
111 Wate,shed Slraleg'es I Walerfronll 84,600 84,600 114 600 '0000 104 600 I.. 600 '0000 104.600
121 Resource Mon1lollng (Waterfront) I
I
I 121.900 121,900 121900 12' 900 121.900 121.900
,REOENEAA nON I
61 Regenerahon Cap,lal PrOJec.s
Walerfronl Regenerahon I 3,653,700 50.000 775,000 2,828,700 16~ 000 J 650 000 2000.000 2.000.000
Eloblcoke Molel Slrop I 2.100,000 1.050,000 1,050,000 1 000 000 1.000 000 400.000 400 000
Melro RAP 1.741,400 470,000 1,271,400 , 260 000 6]0 000 6JO 000 I 260.000 6JO.000 6JO.000
Valley & Shoreline Regen I 1,751,900 200,000 1,651,900 I 200 000 I 200 000 UOO 000 1.200.000
Flood Control I
Toronto Islands I
Bnckworks 188.000 150,000 38,000
Arsenal lands Remed'aloon 4,800,000 2,500,000 2,300,000
- 14,2is,ooci" 50,000 - . - - -. -. 8,435,150 . . -. -...--. -----
5,749,850 1 110000 1,6JO 000 5.480.000 4 660,000 I,OJO,ooo J,6JO,ooo
11 land Acqulslllons & Olsposals 4,650,000 3,250,000 f ,400,000 . 000 000 2,000,000 2,000.000 4 000.000 '.000,000
WAT~~ _~'fNCE
Public Use Infrastructure Projects 1,135,000 967,500 167,500 J.CO.OOO 110.000 110.000 J40,Ooo 110.000 170.000
C.QBP..ORA TE SliB.VJS;ES
Admimstralrve Olroce ..__~~.!l..!..0!'.!l_ _ ~OJlO__~~O,OO~____n_ ...___50~~'ooo ___.___ _~o,ooo__..:!~~___.___
CAPITAL TOTAL 20,4f~l!0 ~d~~~.o_~.~67,~~~.2,.~~2.j~0 "!,J6~ 2,220.000 ~~~~~~~, 9,466.500 ~,ooo~_~?!.6.~
~;='S;;:~"_--=-----=-=::: ~ ~_~~-~ -~ _~ ~::-:::~::: ::::::~::: J'~:::~:~ . ~: ::::::::::: ::::::::::::~_~:::::: . ":' ':: .--_ :::::::::::::_=-:::::::::::::: _:::_~:::,m,,:
l='~oJq\
I
!
.
SECTION II
lL I Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace I
-- -- -. -_. -.
-- -----------
~~'/'t4f> .
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
BUSINESS PLAN 1998 .2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
WATERSHED PLANNING:
1, WATERSHED STRATEGIES ...,.......................,........,."", 1
2, RESOURCE MONITORING .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . , 6
3, EDUCATION SERVICES ..........................,....,...,.."...,. 11
4, FLOOD WARNING/CONTROL...,.....,.,...,.,..,...,......,..,.,." 14
LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES:
5, PLANNING ADVISORYfTECHNICAL CLEARANCE/PERMITTING/COMPLIANCE
MONITORING.,................................,.................., 16
REGENERATION:
6. PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION (INCLUDES CAPITAL) . . . . . . . . . . , , . . , . . . . 20
7. LAND ACQUISITION AND DiSPOSALS..".....................,.,.,... 23
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS:
8, PROPERTY SERVICES .,....,.........,..,...",......,."...,...." 27
9, CA LAND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . , . . . . . , . . , . . 29
10, WATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES. . . . , , , . . , , , . , . . , . . , . . . . , . , , . . . . . 32
11. BCPV INFRASTRUCTURE. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ........,.,.".,.............,.,..,....,.. 36
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE:
13. RECREATION - CONSERVATION AREAS, , . . . . . . , , . . , , . . . . . . , , , , . , . , . . .39
14. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE: PUBLIC USE PROGRAMS .,..,..,.....42
CORPORATE SERVICE:
15, CORPORATE SERVICES. . . , . . . , . . , , . , . , , , . . , . . , , . . . . . . . , , . . . ... , , . . .46
15b, APPENDIX. DEVELOPMENT OFFICE. , , . . . . . . , . . , , . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , , 49
r:~~/crg
WATERSHED PLANNING
~ea3/q~
WATERSHED PLANNING
1. WATERSHED STRATEGIES
DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
Watershed strategies are customized management frameworks developed to
provide a rational approach to natural systems protection and 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
communi awareness ro rams are inte ral to strate im lementation.
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 the next 3 years recognizing TRCA's
new co-implementation role.
Don Humber Etob-Mimico Highland Rouge Duffins
1998 Phase 3 Phase 3 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 3 Pre-Phase 1
1999 " " Phase 2 Phase 2 " "
2000 " " Phase 3 Phase 3 " "
1998: Humber.lmplementation of Legacy, development of a Humber Report Card, work
towards designation of Heritage River designation, implementation of community action
sites, completion of Fisheries Management Plan
Don: Implementation of Forty Steps, address targets in 'Turning the Corner, the Don
Report Card', implementation of community action sites, watershed monitoring
Etobicoke-Mimico. Completion of State of Watershed Report, formation of Task Force,
Fisheries Management Plan
Highland. Completion of State of Watershed Report, Fisheries Management Plan and
pilot study on water management to quantity, quality and erosion issues
Waterfront: Establish Waterfront Alliance, update integrated shoreline management plans
concept site implementation
Service level trends:
1998: new initiatives on the Highland, Rouge, Duffins, and the Etobicoke/Mimico
Watersheds built mostly around new sources of funding. Work continues at a
moderately expanded pace on the Don, Humber, and the Waterfront.
1
F~4/q,
1999-2000: At end of 3 years the Highland, and Etobicoke/Mimico strategies will be
complete and in implementation phase.
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.
We anticipate the Humber River will be officially designated a Canadian Heritage River
by the Provincial and Canadian Governments in 1999. Consequently, the 1999
grant/levy has been increased by $20,000 to cover associated costs such as
management plan additions and special events supplies and services necessary to host
a suitable dedication ceremony.
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
Watershed Strategies l::1::1i l::1::1i actual 1::1::111 1::1::1::1 :lUUU
Don Strategy. Expenditures 289,400 348,475 286,100 300,000 350,000
Federal, MUniCipal, t'roVlnclal, or donations 60,000 144,192 ~o,poO _tlU, UVU 60,000
Net Grant/lew requirement LU4,LtlJ LLtl,lUU L4U,UUU L~U, UUU
IHumber Strategy. ~pendltures 280,000 328,292 277 ,200 :l9f ,200 327,200
Federal, Municipal, ProVinCial. or donations 60,000 95,862 60,000 60,000 60,000
INet GranUlew reqUIrement LLU,UUU LJL,qjU L1 i ,LUU LJ i ,LUU 267,200
IEtoblcoke-Mlmlco - ~pendltures , 15,000 25,527 80,000 l:l:J,uOu 175,000
Federal, Municipal, ProVinCial, or donations 11:<1.uuu L:J,:J2ti JU,UUU :JU,UUU 50,000
Net Grant/levy requirement U 1 :JU,UUU i:J,UUU lL:J,UUU
Highland Crk- Expenditures 155,000 24,600 109,700 154,700 204,700
Federal, MuniCipal, ProVinCial, or donations 65,000 (156 LU,UUO 6:J,uuO 65,000
Net Grant/levy requirement 90,000 24,756 89,100 89,100 139,700
Rouge Strategy-Expenditures 10,000 22,578
federal, MUniCipal, t'roVlnclal, or donations 10,000 22.578
I GranUlevy requirement U U U U 0
Duffins Strategy.cxpenditures 25,000 33,124 25,000 75,000 95,200
IOther Pro~nclal IUndrng 25.000 33,124 2~,OOO U 0
GranUlevy requirement U U U (~,UUU ~:J,:.!UU
Portion in Waterfront Capital - Expenditures 100,000 62,978 84,600 114,600 114,600
Remedial Action Plan funding 0 10,000 10,000
Other Federal rundlng U
Other MuniCipal, Pro'Vincial, or dona lions 0 0 0 0 0
Capital GranUlevy requirement 1 UU,UUU ti:.!,~(l:l tl4,bUU lU4,tiUU lU4,bUU
otal Operating Expenses 1114.400 782,596 f 18,000 851,800 1,152,100
otal Capital Expenses 100,000 62,978 84,600 114,600 114,600
)peratinq-Levy/Grant 539,400 461.470 583,000 716,900 917,100
apita I-Levv/Gra nt 100 000 62,978 84,600 104600 104600
2
~~dS"Jq'
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
- Measurable demonstrated improvements within watershed
- Measurable shift in understanding and stewardship
- Number of regeneration projects throughout watersheds
WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Watershed strategies provide an integrated program for watershed management for now and into
the future. 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 opportunities for the public to
participate in the process, while maintaining the essential elements of political and public
accountability through both the planning and implementation committees and the Authority's
regular committees.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE TRCA 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 began to assist by providing
funding for 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.
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.
Local/Regional Municipalities: Watersheds, in the Toronto area, generally transcend many local
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 iurisdictions could enter into aQreements with adjacent and
3
Fea~/~
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.
The current approach of TRCA seeks to integrate these interests into the strategy development
process achieving an efficiency through sharing of technical resources among watersheds,
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER
THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER TRCA ACTIVITY?
- The TRCA'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.
-TRCA 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 TRCA commenting and design functions resulting in ongoing
consistent implementation.
The TRCA is committed to working with its municipalities, at the community level, with business
and others to develop effective and implementable strategies.
Conclusion: For these reasons, the TRCA should 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. 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.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECTIVELY?
Significant 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 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.
WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
Strategies are already built around contributions from a variety of sources other than levy/grant.
They include:
-Other Provincial sources (alternative to MNR grant)
4
l=~a7/"1J
-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.
5
~ea~/qcg
WATERSHED PLANNING
2. RESOURCE MONITORING
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; TRCA 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 future 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 TRCA 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 TRCA's spatial data and information. Our
municipal and provincial business partners have all embraced this technology and it
has become expected as a way of doinQ business.
6
~~aqm
WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE BEEN
BUJL T 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 TRCA chooses to expedite watershed strategies over the
next three years then resource inventory demands will increase accordingly.
1998: In 1997 we where able to increase technical support for our water
resource engineering services. Service levels have been maintained at
their current levels. In 1998 the projections recognize a decrease in
revenue associated with special project. This decrease represents the
need to focus resources on internal support for Authority initiatives,
Resource monitoring technical support has been increased to provide for
additional municipal technical advise and hydrogeologic support, Flood
line mapping (update and extension) will continue to be a priority,
1999-2000: Technical resource support will continue in 1999 - 2000 at an increased
level. Additional funding for providing technical analysis and direction to
municipal partners related to water management issues has been
identified,
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
otal Expenditures
Re-.enue
GranUle R Ulred
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 TRCA 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.
7
Fe ~/qs
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.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE TRCA MIGHT HANDLE 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 TRCA, 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,
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER THREE
YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER TRCA ACTIVITY?
Currently, there is no other public or private agency in the GTA that is responsible for collecting
and analysing resource management information within a watershed context. This context is what
makes TRCA'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 TRCA'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 embraced in order to ensure the Authoritv's
8
F~3' 1cr:6
continued success as an information management agency.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE mCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECTIVELY?
.It may be possible to privatize specific resource inventory functions and buy back the services,
For example, TRCA could choose not'to maintain internal GIS and mapping and tender the delivery
of 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 TRCA and our experience
with the private sector indicates that this may be a more costly option.
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 of activity will increase project
commitments and may detract from the ability of staff to deliver on core Authority projects.
9
J:e~;q~
Appendix 1: Defining TRCA 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 for
unstable slopes) 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 the
Natural Heritage Resources 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 core
archaeological resources CD mandatory and core discretionary
watershed management resource interests.
Other Resources
trails CD
public use areas CD
aggregates NC
agriculture NC
10
1=~~~/q~
WATERSHED PLANNING
3. EDUCATION SERVICES
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.
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.
-An ongoing review and updating of Kortright programs will provide repeat visitation and
opportunities to promote the Centre,
1997 - 1998: 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,
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS:
Education i 11197 1997 actual 1896 1999 2000
Field Centres- Starr 1 011 200 1 021 802 1 001 100 1,001100 1 001 100
. Food co.t. IDO,OOO U8,132 &32,100 632,100 U2,100
. ".cllltles & .uaalle. costs 240,400 121,014 132,100 132,500 332,800
Tota' Expenditure. 1,11e,100 1,888,e28 1,812,100 1,812,100 1,812,100
Operating -~avanue 1,331,200 1 3110,220 1.388 100 1 388100 1 385100
.Other 410,800 488,022 1121,100 1121,700 827,700
Munlclaal Lavv (10,100 70,38e (41,200 (41,200 (41,200
Kortrlllht Centra -oanaral I"',eoo 1,043,401 1,091,eOO 1,083,200 1,083,200
.I{anawable Enerav 100,000 51.011 71 100 11 100 71 100
.Food 74,100 71,4U 44,000 76,000 10,000
Tota' Expenditures 1 134,200 1,201,848 1,208 100 1 229 100 1 244 300
Operating -I{evenua 121,800 588,421 117,000 837,000 851,000
.Renewable Enarav I 100000 11 011 71 100 11 100 71 100
."ood I 10,400 11,788 '1,700 100,000 115,000
Munlclaal Lavv I 322 000 481148 40. 800 221 200 201 200
11
Fe 3II/q~
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Attendance levels: 1997 1998 1999 2000
Kortright: 130,000 150,000 150,000 150,000
Field Centres 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000
-In progress:Customer service ratings derived from surveys.
-In progress:Level of awareness of TRCA as measured by exit surveys.
-Meeting of financial targets.
BACKGROUND:
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 01 the curriculum. There is a
need and a demand for ~his 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.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDE THE TRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILllY?
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 overthe 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.
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER THREE
YEARS? DOES THE ACTlVllY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER TRCA ACTIVllY?
Field Centres: We can do It cheape~ 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 01 Authority run Field Centres versus School Board run facilities indicates a substantially
lower operating cost per unit for Authority facilities which deliver programs 01 at least equivalent
quality,
12
~e ~S' I'~
An investment in education today is 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,
Kortrlght Centre:
The Kortright Centre is the Authority's window on the community. Through the Centre's programs
and activities the work of the Authority and its environmental message is promoted to adults and
students alike. This engenders support for the Authority in the community and among
stakeholders and partners.
It is critical, in doing this work that the programs and messages produced by Kortright are relevant
and current. With this in mind, an overall review of the Centre's vision and product is underway.
This will be completed in 1998 and will help to set the framework for the three year development of
the Centre.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECnVEL Y?
A review of the operation of the Kortright Centre and staffing was carried out and in 1996 and
operations were integrated with the Conservation Areas South Zone. Internal operations of the
Kortright Centre are currently under review, and it is anticipated that additional efficiencies can be
achieved without compromising the quality of programs or activities. These efficiencies are
reflected in the financial information provided below, This operational review will be linked to the
visioning exercise noted in the previous section.
The Field Centres plan already incorporates a reorganization of staff responsibilities such that
overall staffing is reduced,
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.
KCC will continue to pursue sponsorships to provide both revenue and in kind support, In
addition, it is felt that significant opportunities exist to' expand revenues from retail sales and food
sales. At present, demand for day programs for school groups exceeds the capacity of the Centre.
. Classroom space has been expanded to take advantage of this. and further expansion will be
carried out in 1998, as part of a redesign of the exhibit floor. Finally, the "Living Machine currently
being installed at Kortright offers an opportunity to derive revenues from a new and fresh program
area,
The Albion Hills Conservation Field Centre has, recently. initiated a program with a local supplier
to pay for a period of time at the Centre. This is an innovative idea and one which can be used as
an example to others to encouraqe their support.
13
FC> ~, /q~
WATERSHED PLANNING
4. FLOOD W ARNI NG/CONTROL
. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
Monitoring of weather and the collection of data to determine current watershed
conditions, forecasting of potential flooding, issuance of appropriate 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.
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,
development and maintenance of existing data, models, and facilities) and will 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.
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
am IIlg
, . ,
. 0 0 0 0
0
VB, 400 174,204 236 000 236 000 236 000
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS?
The key performance indicators are: adequate prediction, warning, and reduction of
impact of flood events Le, minimized property damage
BACKGROUND
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.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE TRCA 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,
14
~'037/qi
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.
WHY SHOULD THE mCA 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 TRCA 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 TRCA 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 of 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 essential for developing flood and fill lines which support plan
review and enforcement of the Conservation Authorities Act., as well as Implementing the
Provincial Floodplain Planning Polley. Data related to flood sites Is also a key component In
developing Stormwater Management Strategies In land use planning. All of the data bases
developed for flood warning purposes also play key roles In the development of Watershed
Management Strategies.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE mCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECTIVELY?
Reducing the level of activity would limit the ability to predict and advise on flooding situations.
The mCA Is continuing to work with adjacent Conservation Authority's within a GTA Flood
Warning Task Force to ensure efficiencies and consistency amongst authorities. This work
Involves reviewing the sharing of resources, reduction In duplication, provision of
consistency In product and maximizing existing capabilities.
Private Sector involvement is not considered likely to result in cost savings.
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,
15
F~~~/q,
, LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES
F(!)~~Jq,
LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES
5. PLANNING ADVISORY/TECHNICAL CLEARANCE/PERMITTING/COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
The TRCA 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 TRCA 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 TRCA 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.
WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE BEEN
BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
- see also efficiency initiatives section.
Strategic Shifts:
1998-2000: Construction and Alteration to Waterway Regulations to go from the current
~60% to 100% coverage of all valley and stream corridors and fill regulations, pursuant to
CA Act amendments.
1998-2000: Fill and Alteration to Waterway Regulations for the Lake Ontario Shoreline
expand to include construction, pursuant to CA Act amendments.
1998-2000: 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).
16
F~L40/qi
Key changes:
1998: increase in support staff. User fees for planning advisory I technical clearance
finalized and implemented in all TRCA municipalities,
1999: Fees collection almost 100%. New support staff costs annualized.
2000: Fee collection 100% in place. Increased servicing costs.
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Efficiencv Indicators include:
Volume against TRCA outcomes
Activity against service delivery time frames
TRCA expenditures against alternatives
- client needs against services
Effectiveness Indicators include:
- TRCA Watershed Report Cards performance measures
- Municipal Official Plan performance measures
- client needs a ainst services
'BACKGROUND
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.
Lend owners and decision makers also have various statutory obligations that must be met.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE mCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Both the province and municipalities have direct interests in watershed management and deliver
land use planning and development services: however, in 1996 the province transferred it plan
review functions to municipalities to focus provincial efforts on planning documents and more
limited permitting activities, Municipal services cover a broader range of issues than those of the
Authority, There is minimal duplication of Authority services even on matters of joint concern.
Municipalities can replace specific TRCA products and services by developing/retaining in-house
ex ertise, retainin consultants, rei in on eer review and/or certification. These alternative
17
~eq\/q,
models are currently employed to varying degrees and on a limited range of issues. They cannot
replace the full range of TRCA services nor achieve the same cost effectiveness. Watershed
municipalities continue to support the role of the TRCA in land use planning and development
including the delivery of Provincial functions related to natural hazards, natural heritage and water
management. Numerous Partnership Memoranda between TRCA and neighbouring CA's and
Regional and Area Municipalities have been approved (or are pending) which set out CA land use
planning and development services.
WHY SHOULD THE mCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER THREE
YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER mCA 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,
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 any
one 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 greens pace lands which is recognized
as a valuable public asset. Property interests are protected and extended through the land use
planning and development process.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECTIVELY?
Planning Advisory
By end of 1998: information sharing will improve to maximize value-added service delivery
through pre-screening and reduced circulations of all types of development applications,
1998-2000: expand our expertise and guidance pursuant to Watershed Planning initiatives (eg,
groundwater) ,
1998-2000: increase our efforts to complete watershed resource inventories for municipal clients
eg., Phase I component of Master Environmental Servicing Studies/ Subwatershed Plans
By end of 1998: 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.
1998-2000: increase emphasis on integrating community and resource planning eg., trails. access,
etc.
Technical Clearance - 1998-99: develop partnership arrangements with municipalities to improve
or streamline the delivery of technical clearance services for example, those related to stormwater
management, sediment control, etc, associated with development applications.
Permitting - Legislative revisions to the CA Act and other water management statutes associated
with the Provincial Red Tape review should enable streamlining of work permit approvals, eg:
1998-2000: reduce and/or simplify the need for approvals and/or the approval mechanism for
18
. F"t!>L4a/q~
"minor" works,
1998-2000: develop and expand agreements (like the current Don Watershed "One-Window"
agreement) or delegation of approval regulations to assume approval authority for related
Provincial work permits (eg, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act).
1998-lmplement FederalfTRCA Agreement for the TRCA review of the Federal Fisheries Act,
Section 35 requirements for all TRCA watersheds.
1998-2000: increase emphasis for land stewardship education in both approvals and enforcement.
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-municipal 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,
19
.
f~~~/ct\
REGENERATION
~~"L\ IQ,
REGENERATION
6. PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION (INCLUDES CAPITAL)
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 Polyresins/Domtar 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.
WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE BEEN
BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
The Authority does not project a major 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.
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.
20
~~sM
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
BACKGROUND
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.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE mCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Municipalities or other provincial agencies such as the Ministry of Natural Resources or Ministry of
Environment 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 the number of 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,
21
~~,,(./q,
WHY SHOULD THE mCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER THREE
YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER mCA 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 reasons, 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,
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE mCA 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.
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.
22
l=~Lfllq<b
REGENERATION
7. LAND ACQUISITION AND DISPOSALS
DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
The Authority's Strategy For Acquisition and Disposal of Land Assets will be
finalized in 1998 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 is implemented
through the Authority's general Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project and
special acquisition projects, which are undertaken as required. Fee simple
purchase is the preferred means of protecting greens pace.
A significant portion of the greenspace acquired by the Authority on an annual basis
includes purchases through the planning and development process at nominal cost.
Costs related to the acquisition of land through the planning and development
process including; legal, survey, environmental audits average $200,000 per year.
Currently these related costs are funded through land sales.
Not all of 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 extensive public consultation process and
the resulting revenues mainly reinvested in high priority environmentally significant
lands. Also dispositions reduce the cost of property taxes and land maintenance
associated with carrying lands which do not support Authority watershed
I objectives.
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 base so that greenspace lands can be 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.
23
fC>4,/Q,
Watershed Total Authority Other Publicly Lands % Completed
Greenspace Owned Lands Owned Lands Remaining To Be
Lands 1997 Acquired
Etobicoke 4,913 925 1,632 2,356 52
Mimico 1,725 99 874 752 56
Humber 34,653 16,386 2,610 15,657 55
Don 9,413 2,244 2,677 4,492 52
Highland 2,115 976 529 610 71
Rouge 7,676 2,720 1 ,452 3,504 54
Petticoat 635 330 3 302 52
Duffins 11,463 5,545 3,674 2,244 80
Carruthers 842 61 28 753 11
Waterfront 3,757 3,187 247 323 91
I TOTAL I 77,1921 32,4731 13,7261 30,993 I 601
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 vital,
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 lands surplus to the Authority's requirement that will generate funds for
acquisition in 1998/1999. To maximize revenues based on fair market value while
ensuring compatible land uses.
4) The new Marketing strategy will raise $2 million per year for land acquisition
starting in 1999/2000
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS:
.
24
~~ ttCf/qt>
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
The area 01 greenspace lands acquired.
Fulfilment 01 public expectations,
Sale 01 land assets at market value.
BACKGROUND
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 GTA 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 opens pace 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 in local and regional Official Plans. Planning measures alone have not adequately
protected the greenspace. It is unlikely the Provincial government will introduce legislation to
prohibit development on environmentally significant lands.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE TRCA 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 opens pace 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 City of Toronto do not
provide regional parks and openspace, As with local municipalities, regional municipalities
are not motivated to acquire the most environmentally significant lands and may not have
a watershed perspective,
c) Waterfront Regeneration Trust: The Waterfront Trust has similar objectives to the Authority.
However, their legislative 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 community groups: 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 foc'us is national and therefore would only consider
acquisition for nationally recognized 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 a encies ma also rovide the necessa reens ace rotection on a fra mented basis.
25
F~'SO/q,
,.'
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER 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.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE ACTlVllY MORE
COST EFFECTIVELY?
. Increased use of contract services, .The Authority uses consultants for such disciplines as
survey, legal, appraisal and environmental audits because these services are only required
on a limited basis, While the Authority also utilizes consultants from time to time to assist
staff in property negotiations, experience has proved it is cost effective to use full time staff
with the requisite skills and knowledge of Authority policies.
. Improved computer systems will provide some additional efficiencies in the delivery of this
activity .
WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
. Land donations.
. . Revenue generating initiatives
. 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 2 years,
26
F~Sljq'i
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC
.
ASSETS
f~g/q,
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS
8. PROPERTY SERVICES
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 internal and external 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 various Provincial
tax reduction programs.
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
- To minimize costs and exposure and maximize effective insurance coverage, All
Authority buildings and contents will be reviewed and any buildings and contents
27
~~5~/qt>
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. Ensure that Managed Forest
lands, Conservation lands and Farm lands are properly identified so that they will
be taxed at the appropriate levels.
Insurance
That no changes in insurance requirements will occur as a result of changes in the
Authority's activities in the next three years,
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS:
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 taxes payable is minimized.
BACKGROUND
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECTIVELY?
. An alternative 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 provincial wide reassessment for 1998, staff will ensure that all Authority
lands are classed and assessed appropriately. i.e. Managed Forest Lands,
Conservation Lands and Farm Lands.
b) Staff will appeal any assessments considered high on a year to year basis,
c Staff will continue to ursue Mana ement a reements with munici alities,
28
F"~S"~ /q,
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS
9. CA LAND MANAGEMENT
DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
This activity Includes provision for basic property maintenance (i.e. fencing, road
access, hazard tree removal) associated with lands owned and directly managed by
. the TRCA. It also covers costs associated with land ownership that would be
incurred whether or not there was public use. These costs Include:
Property taxes/Insurance: 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
prOQram.
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. When additional lands are purchased, or if lands currently under
management agreement revert to the Authority, costs will rise proportionately, The
figures provided are essentially flat-lined until the year 2000 when more resources are
projected for the management of the additional lands acquired by that time.
.
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%
29
F~sslqf>
Hazard trees are currently dealt with on a complaint basis, and the costs are included in
Area budgets, The current 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.
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
rTlISC. reo.enue
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
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
ad'ust resources accordingl
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.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE TRCA 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.
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE
OVER THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER TRCA
ACTIVITY?
The Authority should deliver basic land management because it is obligated to do so as
the land owner. The activi is linked to, and su ports the Authori 's recreation ro ram.
30
F~5"~ /qi
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:
- River Watch and Flood Warning System
- 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.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER 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,
Direct cost to the Authority can be reduced through the placement of additional lands
under management agreement with local municipalities, Staff have been actively
pursuing this option with several municipalities and it is hoped that additional agreements
will come on stream over the next two years. The impact of these agreements cannot be
predicted at this point, and these have not been included in budget estimates.
.
31
~~57 /'f6
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS
10. WATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
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.
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.
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS:
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
-condition of structures
- # of "emergency" repairs
- economic loss that would have occurred
BACKGROUND
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.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE mCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Province: MN.R 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.
32
.
F~~/q,
WHY SHOULD THE mCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTliNE ITS ROLE OVER
THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER mCA 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 identifY-ing 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.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE mCA 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.
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.
.
.
33
l=~sq/q~
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS
11. BCPVINFRASTRUCTURE
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 only other major heritage building is Bruce's Mill. One heritage activity which
needs to be recognized is the archeological resources and associated artifacts.
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.
- In 2000: additional resources have been built into the projections to reflect the need to
better service and maintain the assets.
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Safe, 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
ermits,
BACKGROUND
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. Livestock, retail
34
FeJ-O/q,
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.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDE THE TRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
. a) PrOVincial/Municipal 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 Le. the lamp collection, but most of the collection is
unique to Black Creek and its historical period.
Of the Municipalities, Toronto 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 Toronto Parks and Culture could be asked to consider
assuming responsibility for the main part of the Village.
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER 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 , 996 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 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.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECTIVELY
N/A
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
35
;:~<o'/qc&
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC ASSETS
12. RENTAL, LEASE AND NEW LEASE DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITY
. Administration of Authority owned rental/lease and special agreement propen .es:
. maintenance of various data bases related to property rental portfolio
. negotiate rental/lease agreements
. preparation of maintenance budget and schedule and monitoring rental/leas ~
budgets, ie: expenditures vs revenues
. advertise, screen and recommend potential tenants for vacant properties
- address tenant concerns
. Assess, negotiate and implement new lease revenue opportunities
DEFINITIONS
. Rental/lease - generally maintains current use (ie: house, agriculture) and is
considered to be an interim use and exclusive private use until full Greenspal e
potential is realized.
. Special Agreement (lease) - generally represents an agreement with a indepe ~dent
private operator to provide public use on Authority lands - must be a compati Ie
resource based use (Public Use Strategy) and may involve a change in currel t
land use or lease arrangement
WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE BEEN
BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
- Market value rent/lease can continue to be obtained
- Expenditures ie: tax'es, maintenance etc. do not increase disproportionately to the
revenues
- The property rental/lease portfolio increases
- That we have an inventory of land that is appealing to the market forces
- That proposed uses are acceptable to the Authority and the community and can be
developed on available sites.
- It may take two to three years to get special agreements implemented and realize
revenues
- 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.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:
Market va/ue is achieved for specified use and maximization of revenue potentia/.
Effective customer /tenant service,
36
F~~Jqi
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
.
:
BACKGROUND
WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
Rental properties provide an interim use, a measure of security for some of more remote tracks
and generate net revenue to, the Authority to support watershed activities.
The demand for various types of public use on Authority lands and the need for new revenue
drives special agreement leases,
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE TRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Rental properties are turned over to municipalities where it is appropriate to do so, In the City of
Toronto, leasehold properties are routinely turned over to the City as part of the Management
agreement i.e. Bluffers Park, This has worked well where management agreements are in place
but typically municipalities are reluctant to provide property management services.
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER
THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER AUTHORITY ACTIVITY?
In the absence of management agreements, rental/lease and special agreement properties cover
the carrying costs and provide net revenues In support of other Authority programs. It is also
important for the Authority to control the timing for termination of the agreements in order to meet
other corporate program priorities as required.
New special agreements must be assessed and conform to stated TRCA technical and public
consultation policies to ensure the proposal is a compatible and community supported use.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECTIVELY?
. The property portfolio could be managed by a property management firm, however the net
revenues would decrease
. Optimum net revenues is achieved through balancing market value rent/lease vs preventative
maintenance program
. Retain consultants to ne otiate s ecial a reements. Consultants have been em 10 ed where
37
\=~c. 3/q~
special expertise is needed, ie: survey, legal, planning and development. 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,
. Wherever feasible, special agreements are structured so that the proponent pays most of the
costs.
WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES ARE BEING CONSIDERED?
. Increase rental/lease and special agreement portfolio.
38
F~~Ll/q,
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE
FtbfoS /qy>
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE
13. RECREATION - CONSERVATION AREAS
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 greens pace 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.
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,
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,
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
- Attendance and revenues adjusted to factor in effects of weather and operating season
length
- Levels of awareness of TRCA as measured by exit interviews.
- Customer service ratings derived from visitor surveys,
39
l=~<'fD/q~
BACKGROUND
WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
- I ncreases 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.
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE TRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Provincial Parks
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 Ontario 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 GTA.
Regional Parks
Within the City of Toronto, certain activities currently experienced in Conservation Areas could be
accommodated in the Toronto regional parks system. Outside of Toronto, 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 is likely to 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 Authority
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,
f Transferring Conservation Areas to local municipalities is, however, appropriate for some Authority
properties, especially those in urbanized areas which experience significant local use. The
possibility of placing properties under agreement should be explored with local municipalities on a
case by case basis,
40
~~(,,7/~
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER
THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER mCA 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.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE ACTIVITY MORE
COST EFFECnVEL Y?
This plan reduces expenditures by moving to a more seasonal operation, placing staff resources
where and when they are most needed, In addition, efficiencies derived from improved
management practices and the use of information technology continue to be implemented.
Alternate modes of service delivery, including contracting out, lease arrangements and
public/private partnerships remain as options. Opportunities will be examined on a case by case
basis and decisions on implementation of alternative will be made based on a clear business case,
WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
Program generated revenues are projected to grow from $2.2 million to almost $2,6 million over
the three year period. This will be accomplished through expanded retail opportunities, fee
increases, and new program offerings. Of particular note is a projected growth in camping
revenues related to facility improvements and enhancement of promotion, and increases in day
use revenues based on i'mproved marketing and sales, Please refer to the Financial table.
41
FB~<ilq~
WATERSHED EXPERIENCE
14. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE: PUBLIC USE PROGRAMS
- 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.
WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE BEEN
BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
1997 1998 1999 2000
Attendance 194,000 199,000 224,000 249,000
1997: Hot Air Balloon exhibit, and new summer student program, and Groundwater
Festival were undertaken,
1998: New strategic direction for audience and marketing will effect an increase in
attendance, augmented by admission increases. See New Revenue section.
1999-2000: parking fee increase In 1999. An increase of 25,000 visitors is projected, with
an additional 25,000 increase in 2000, Expenditure changes in the projection relate to
the costs of the some new programing and development needed to generate operating
revenue, plus increase in retail inventory and cost of food sales, and badly needed
physical plant maintenance,
Assumptions:
- Target market shift demonstrates results, See new revenue discussion.
- Customer resistance to increased fees is not excessive.
- Marketing and development targets are achieved.
- Costumed interpretive staff and new entertainment forms 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.
.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
-Attendance and revenues interpreted in context of weather and length of operating
season,
- Customer service ratings derived from visitor surveys.
42
l=e<D'i/q?J
- Levels of awareness of TRCA as measured by exit interviews.
- Long term preservation of cultural heritage assets.
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
nt
BACKGROUND:
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-Confederation 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,
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDES THE TRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Options could include: Toronto Parks and Culture, Volunteer Board of Directors independent of the
TRCA or any municipality, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, or private profit-
oriented operator.
The BCPV Business Plan Subcommittee of the Authority in 1996 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 the Parks department, previous studies of the issue have revealed that operation
of BCPV would result in a substantially higher overall cost than under TRCA.
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 TRCA 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 facilitv to create an adequate return on investment if capital
43
~ ~ 70/qca
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.
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER 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 Toronto 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 Toronto to maintain facilities outside
their borders,
Revenue generating opportunities will be aggressive.ly 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 an,d its watershed management activities by
providing a high profile facility and program to a wide audience.
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA 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.
WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
Revenue to bring program costs well on the way to self sufficiency by the end of 1999 will be
generated from a number of new and developing sources. A new strategic direction is being
developed, targetting the baby boomers and older adult market, which represents new and
untapped opportunities for Black Creek. Major shifts in programming. theming, retailing, and
marketing focus to suit the adult market will result in attendance growth over the next two years as
well as projected increases in per capita spending as a result of more retail and food initiatives,
In addition to attendance growth, additional admission revenues will be generated from a rate
increase for 1998 and an increase in parking fees in 1999.
,
Retail operations at Black Creek have been redesigned following a comprehensive audit, to suit
new market opportunities, A limited number of physical changes have been made to the main Gift
Shop in 1998, with the possibility of further and more intrusive structural changes once the store
profits increase. With respect to retail in the restored Village, the Laskay Emporium will be
converted into 100% retail space, consolidating and increasing the availability of reproductions
and select products visitors are Interested in purchasing as part of their visit experience. Creating
44
Fe,t/q,
the Black Creek brand of products will be introduced in 1998 with substantial growth in 1999 and
beyond.
Revenue generation from one on- site food outlet and Catering is expected to grow dramatically.
One restaurant will be operated daily in the refurbished HalfWay House and adjacent patio,
themed to compliment the garden/herb programs. Food revenues are projected to increase as a
result of the growth in attendance and innovative food programs to attract new target markets, To
address school group and other general requirements, basic service will be provided through
vending machines and a coffee cart in the Visitors Centre. An aggressive sales plan to sell the
Village year round for catered functions is in place, and will become an increasingly important
component of Black Creek's revenue plan.
A new program will be rolled out in 1998, with three productions, aimed specifically at the Baby
Boomer market and that capitalize on trends to attract first time visits, and secure repeat visits.
The program will be expanded in 1999 based on evaluation of the program, visitor feedback and
the program marketing,
An aggressive approach will be taken by the Development and Marketing Department to build
partnerships and sponsorships between the corporate sector and TRCA, with Black Creek offering
substantial opportunities as part of their plan.
The goal is to make the public use aspect of the operation will be substantially self funded within
three years,
45
1=~70l Jqg
CORPORATE SERVICES
,
t=~73/'"
CORPORATE SERVICES
15. CORPORATE SERVICES
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 fees for
Conservation Ontario.
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: See Appendix for detailed discussion.
The staff and administrative resources required for the management of the
Authority's and Conservation Foundation's fundraising 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.
Information 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
46
Fe7t1/QW
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 cateaorv.
.
WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE BEEN
BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
.
See Appendix for specific Development Office discussion.
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 toois 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
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.
1999: Approximately $250,000 will be required to upgrade the head office telephone
system. Reserves are projected to be used to fund this project.
'r KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Corporate services as a proportion of total Authority capital and operating expenditures
continues to be approximately 7-9%.
47
l="~7~Ai
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
BACKGROUND
WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
N/A
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDE THE TRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE RESPONSIBILITY?
N/A
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER
THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER AUTHORITY ACTIVITY?
N/A
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER 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 Le,
GST
. investment in new technology to automate processes wherever feasible
. regular review of internal processes to determine needs and eliminate redundancies
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 historrcallevels. The revenue associated with the Development
Office will be generated by the Conservation Foundation. Please see the attached appendix for a
more detailed discussion of Development and marketinq initiatives.
48
I='G7"lq~
CORPORATE SERVICES- APPENDIX
15.B DEVELOPMENT OFFICE (EXPENDITURES SHOWN IN CORP. SERVICES AND
FUNDRAISING REVENUE SHOWN IN WATERSHED EXPERIENCE)
:
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
The staff and administrative resources required for the management of the
. Authority's and Conservation Foundation's fundraising efforts were combined to
form this unit in March of 1997. The costs of this group are covered by CFGT
revenue which are shown on the Corporate Services Financial Table.
This group develops and implements corporate fundraising programs, the revenues
from which are shown under Watershed Experience and are the focus of this
appendix.
WHAT KEY ASSUMPTIONS, STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE BEEN
BUILT INTO THE PROJECTION?
Strateaic Initiatives: Develooment & Marketina
. Amalgamation and effective management of the TRCA relationship data base;
. Targeted personalized solicitation of the data base for long term relationship building
and annual incremental movement of donors to higher levels of giving
. Formation of a leveraged corporate cabinet and execution of a corporate solicitation
campaign;
. Launch of a membership program for new and existing public/environmental donors;
. Development and enhancement of TRCA added value product line to sell to sponsors and
cross promotion partners;
. Align all existing TRCAlConservation Foundation fund raising, membership and relationship
building activity into a single seamless management and annual solicitation program;
. Enhanced solicitation of foundations, service clubs and funds,
. Market positioning through market and customer research and creative TRCAlConservation
Foundation brand development;
. High quality sales strategies to sell TRCAlConservation Foundation products;
. Alignment and improved coordination of our existing public use facility enterprises within a
product development and sales strategy;
. Staff training and infrastructure development for improved customer service across
TRCA;
. New product development on a large sc;ale, integrated across the watershed;
. Creative persuasion and communication strategies to impart watershed/environmental
message;
. Develop a membership program with added value components, including a pass for all
TRCA public use facilities;
. Develop new strategies for public use facility sponsors and cross promoters to build
relationships and affinity with our organization and its 1.2 million customers and municipal
49
t:e,7/Q,
stake holders, etc.
Hiah Level Development ~ Marketing Goals:
. $1 million: a conservative and developing campaign to support 1998 TRCA budgeted and
unbudgeted operating shortfalls. $500 thousand operating, $500 thousand capital.
. Develop a 1999 Campaign Strategy for $2 million
· Assist public use facilities in achieving and surpassing their revenue targets for 1998 through
enhanced marketing/sales strategies of public use facilities and the enhancement of their
products and services
. To develop and execute a branding/promotion campaign for TRCA and its products
Comments on Service Levels ~ Revenue Taraets in Financial Proiections
1998: revenue for operating purposes budgeted conservatively as shown below, Relates to
Membership campaigns and donations/sponsorships, Additional fundraising shown in Public use
Infrastructure capital project re: Kortright Living Machine,
1999: Continued growth in membership campaign revenue. Some associated cost increases,
2000: Continued growth in membership campaign revenue, Some associated cost increases,
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Achievement of fundraising tar ets in a cost-effective manner.
BACKGROUND
WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE DONE?
N/A
WHAT AGENCIES BESIDE THE TRCA MIGHT HANDLE THE.RESPONSIBILlTY?
N/A
WHY SHOULD THE TRCA BE THE AGENCY TO DELIVER THIS AND OUTLINE ITS ROLE OVER
THREE YEARS? DOES THE ACTIVITY DEPEND ON OR SUPPORT OTHER AUTHORITY
ACTIVITY?
N/A
WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE TRCA TO DELIVER THE
ACTIVITY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY?
We have evaluated the options of contracting out the function through the use of specialized
consultants and also the feasibility of shared services with municipalities to achieve economies of scale.
Concluded that in-house expertise is the most promising,
WHAT NEW REVENUE SOURCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED?
The purpose of this function is to substantially increase the Authority's success in the crowded
fundraising market. Strategic directions are discussed above.
50