HomeMy WebLinkAboutConservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board 1995
'~ ' Working Together for Tomorrow"s Greenspace
'the metropolitan toronto ~d region c~nservation authority
. E1
minutes
MARCH 3, 1995 JOINT MEETING OF THE #1/95
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
and
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board and the Conservation and Related Land
Management Advisory Board met jointly in the South Theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek
Pioneer Village on Friday, March 3, 1995. The Chair of the Water and Related Land Management
Board, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10: 15 a.m.
PRESENT FOR COMBINED MEETING Chair Lois Griffin
Members Randy Barber
Victoria Carley
Michael Di Biase
Alan Christie
Lois Hancey
Joanna Kidd
Donna Patterson
Deborah Sword
Richard Whitehead
ABSENT FOR COMBINED MEETING Members Maria Augimeri
Lorna Bissell
lIa Bossons
Joan King
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Paul Palleschi
Enrico Pistritto
Maja Prentice
Bev Salmon
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Joanna Kidd, as a consultant for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the Rouge Park, declared a
conflict with respect to item three, Rouge Park Management Structure and Funding Report, and did
not participate in discussion or vote on this matter. .
../"
E2 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995
GUEST SPEAKER
The Chair introduced The Honourable David Crombie, Commissioner, Waterfront Regeneration Trust
who spoke on the vision of the Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy, the Waterfront Trail Tour and the
Rouge Park Management Structure. The Honourable Mr. Crombie gave a slide presentation and
then introduced Suzanne Barrett, Director, Environmental Studies, to speak specifically to the
Waterfront Trail Strategy. Charity Landon, Project Coordinator, Waterfront Trail, was introduced
and spoke on her role as coordinator for the Tour.
Larry Field, Watershed Specialist, Lakefront, presented a Waterfront Trail sweatshirt to the Vice
Chair of the Authority, Lois Hancey; the Chair of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory
Board, Lois Griffin; and the Chair of the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory
Board, Richard Whitehead. The Vice Chairs of the Boards, Lorna Bissell and Maria Augimeri, who
were unable to attend the meeting, will also receive a Waterfront Trail sweatshirt. The Honourable
David Crombie presented each member present with a Waterfront Trail logo pin.
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DRAFT lAKE ONTARIO GREENWAY STRATEGY - January 1995
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
KEY ISSUE
Presentation of the draft Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy - January 1995, prepared by the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
Res. #W1/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Res. #C1/95 Seconded by: lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the draft lake Ontario
Greenway Strategy - January 1995, prepared by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust be received.
THAT the Authority support the draft lake Ontario Greenway Strategy as it supports the initiatives
and strategy directions of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA)
along the waterfront including the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan which provides a basis for the
waterfront capital projects in Metropolitan Toronto.
THAT staff provide a further report on the final lake Ontario Greenway Strategy expected to be
released in May 1995.
AND FURTHER THAT the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
and the Region of Durham, including the Town of Pickering and the Town of Ajax, be so advised.
CARRIED
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995 E3
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DRAFT LAKE ONTARIO GREENWAY STRATEGY - January 1995 (CONTD.)
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
BACKGROUND
The Authority has supported and endorsed the principles and approach outlined in the Royal
Commission-on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront's reports "Watersheds" - 1990, and
"Regeneration" - 1992.
The draft Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy for the lands and waters from Burlington Bay to the
Trent River was distributed to members of the Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy (LOGS) Steering
Committee on January 25, 1995, for comment. The Waterfront Regeneration Trust (the Trust) has
requested comments by March 22, 1995, in order that a final document can be released to coincide
with the launch of the Waterfront Trail, May 14, 1995 to June 11, 1995.
MTRCA staff along with staff from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Etobicoke,
the City of Toronto, the City of Scarborough, the Region of Durham, the Town of Pickering, the
Town of Ajax as well as many other agencies and interest groups have participated on the LOGS
Steering Committee. 1
The draft strategy is a significant milestone of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust's six priority
programs identified as key components of the work program with the release of the final report
"Regeneration" by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. The other five
priority programs are:
Garrison Common;
The Lower Don Lands strategy;
Transportation Corridor (Gardiner Expressway);
Consolidated Capital Plans; and
Partnership Agreements.
The greenway concept is gaining increasing popularity in Canada and the U.S. as a means to
integrate environmental regeneration and recreation opportunities into the urban and rural fabric.
Greenways can:
protect and link habitats,
enhance environmental quality,
provide recreation activities close to home,
create more liveable communities, and
enhance business opportunities.
-
E4 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 3,1995
SECTION I-ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DRAFT LAKE ONTARIO GREENWAY STRATEGY - January 1995 (CONTD.I
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
The draft report was prepared by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on behalf of the Steering
Committee. It highlights the work that has been accomplished to date and outlines a work program
for the future. The report is intended to:
. confirm the vision for the lake Ontario Waterfront;
report on progress to date;
establish a blueprint for further action;
outline the tools available to accomplish the actions;
direct people to the extensive background materials and guidelines on which the
strategy is based; and
motivate the partners.
THE WATERFRONT OF THE FUTURE
To achieve the vision of the waterfront of the future, concerted action by a wide range of
individuals and agencies is necessary. Fostering the necessary commitment to those actions is the
goal of the Greenway Strategy; the scope of actions is guided by the nine principles established by
the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, and broadly endorsed and
supported by citizens and governments - that the waterfront of today and tomorrow should be
clean, green, open, accessible, connected, useable, diverse, attractive, and affordable.
Those principles are embodied in five objectives for the Greenway Strategy using an ecosystem
approach:
Objective 1
Protect the physical, natural and cultural attributes associated with the lake Ontario
waterfront through cooperative actions.
To achieve this objective, a number of actions are planned or underway:
1.1 Identify and protect significant coastal features and habitats.
1.2 Protect waterfront natural core areas.
1.3 Protect bioregional habitat corridors and connections.
1.4 Protect water quality from further deterioration.
1.5 Protect places of archaeological, historic or cultural significance.
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1195. MARCH 3. 1995 E 5
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DRAFT LAKE ONTARIO GREENWAY STRATEGY - January 1995 (CONTO.)
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Objective 2
Identify restoration needs and methods and encourage landowners, communities and
agencies to undertake regeneration activities.
To achieve this objective, a number of actions are planned or underway:
2.1 Restore an adequate supply of natural habitats to sustain biodiversity.
2.2 Target restoration programs to priority habitat types.
2.3 Restore balance to Canada Goose populations.
2.4 Restore degraded waters and sediments.
2.5 Restore sites with contaminated soils or groundwater.
2.6 Strengthen community identity and landscape character.
Objective 3
Promote greater awareness, understanding and recreational use of the waterfront and
encourage community pride and participation in its regeneration.
To achieve this objective, a number of actions are planned and underway:
3.1 Encourage appropriate access to and use of the waterfront.
3.2 Complete and upgrade the Waterfront Trail.
3.3 Develop public understanding of waterfront processes and values.
3.4 Develop community participation in waterfront projects.
3.5 Strengthen traditional waterfront festivals and celebrations.
3.6 Recognize changing populations in planning waterfront recreation.
3.7 Link recreation resources with health promotion.
Objective 4
Promote economic activities and employment on the waterfront that are compatible with
other Greenway objectives.
To achieve this objective, a number of actions are planned or underway:
4.1 Enhance the role of existing and new economic activities.
4.2 Direct new development to appropriate locations.
4.3 Monitor and respond to changing patterns of harbour use.
4.4 Identify and develop tourismlrecreation destination areas.
4.5 Develop new waterfront attractions.
4.6 Develop joint packaging and marketing of theme waterfront experiences.
4.7 Reduce conflicts between transportation corridors, waterfront access, and sense of
place.
E6 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DRAFT LAKE ONTARIO GREENWAY STRATEGY - January 1995 (CONTD.)
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Objective 5
Facilitate cost-effective public and private initiatives by reducing jurisdictional gridlock,
sharing resources, and coordinating waterfront activities.
To achieve this objective, a number of actions are planned or underway:
5.1 Integrate the application of provincial policies, regulations, and processes.
5.2 Encourage private investments through cooperative action and innovation.
5.3 Coordinate the allocation and timing of funding to waterfront projects.
5.4 Assist in resolving jurisdictional or policy conflicts.
5.5 Standardize and link research and information networks.
5.6 Evaluate the cumulative effects of waterfront changes.
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
Planning/Regulatory
A wide range of existing legislation provides a planning and regulatory context for activities
along the waterfront, and can be used to assist in implementing the Greenway Strategy.
These can be grouped in six categories:
A.1 General planning legislation.
A.2 legislation affecting use of water's edge and offshore.
A.3 Other related regulatory instruments.
A.4 Watershed strategies and sub-watershed plans.
A.5 Remedial Action Plans.
A.6 Integrated shoreline management plans.
Stewardship
Stewardship involves the concept of voluntary management of both public and private lands
in such a way that they contribute to a broad range of ecological and cultural objectives.
The range of stewardship techniques should include:
B.1 Management of public lands.
B.2 land acquisition by public agencies.
B.3 landowner contact.
Coordination/Guidance
A great deal of progress in implementing the Greenway Strategy could flow from better
coordination of the tools and resources that are already available, such tools include:
C.1 Technical guidelines.
C.2 Research and monitoring.
C.3 Information exchange and training.
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS '1/95, MARCH 3,1995 E 7
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DRAFT LAKE ONTARIO GREENWAY STRATEGY - January 1995 (CONTD.)
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
FUNDING AND INCENTIVES
Finding the dollars necessary to fully regenerate the waterfront will always be challenging.
Although much has been accomplished in recent years, new approaches, greater creativity, and the
involvement of a broader range of partners will be necessary. Techniques to finance the actions
identified within this strategy are summarized in three broad tools:
0.1 Coordinating plans and projects with funding opportunities.
0.2 Directing economic incentives.
0.3 Attracting private funds to waterfront projects.
RATIONALE
Authority staff have participated on the Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy Steering Committee and
the various working groups during the formulation stages of the draft strategy.
The Draft Strategy's five objectives and specific actions outlines a blueprint for the waterfront of
tomorrow between Burlington Bay and the Trent River. This blueprint reflects many of the
watershed program and greenspace strategy directions of the Authority for the waterfront and
watersheds.
The Strategy adds strength to the Authority's work as it:
. is consistent with the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan and the Greenspace Strategy;
. provides broad bioregional context for MTRCA's work;
. provides useful information and guidance for Authority projects and programs
through background reports and a toolkit;
. reinforces and adds rationale to work that the Authority is doinglplanning to do
(e.g.; watershed strategies, integrated shoreline management plans, environmental
monitoring, waterfront trail, habitat restoration, consultative processes, etc.)
It specifically complements and adds a bioregional context for:
. watershed strategies and sub-watershed plans;
. implementation of Metropolitan Waterfront Plan (waterfront trail, habitat restoration,
shoreline protection, recreation);
. remedial action plans and initiatives;
. integrated shoreline management plans (e.g.; Tommy Thompson to Frenchman's
Bay);
. stewardship (land acquisition, landowner contract);
. research and monitoring (e.g.; stormwater quality control guidelines; monitoring of
aquatic processes);
. coordination and partnerships (working with other conservation authorities -
LOCAA).
,.
'i:.
I E8 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. DRAFT LAKE ONTARIO GREENWAY STRATEGY - January 1995 (CONTO.)
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
The only question is how the strategy will be used by the Trust and the Province along the Lake
Ontario Greenway, which is noted for its jurisdictional and regulatory gridlock.
The preference would be that LOGS provide the vision and guidance to the municipalities and
conservation authorities policies, programs and specific regeneration initiatives (wetlands, fish
habitat, environmental trails) and not as another governmental layer of planning policies.
WORK TO BE DONE
Authority staff will be providing the Waterfront Regeneration Trust with some detailed technical
comments and this report. This report will be distributed to all member municipalities along the
waterfront.
Authority members will be advised when the Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy is released in May
1995.
For information contact: Larry Field, extension 243.
2. WATERFRONT TRAIL TOUR
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
KEY ISSUE
To announce the Waterfront Trail Tour being led by The Honourable David Crombie, Commissioner,
Waterfront Regeneration Trust from May 14 to June 11, 1995.
Res. #W2/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Res. #C2/95 Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Waterfront Trail
Tour, being led by the Honourable David Crombie, Commissioner, Waterfront Regeneration Trust,
from May 14 to June 11, 1995 be received;
'~
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to assist the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and membm"
municipalities in the planning and staffing of various events including the participation of the
appropriate Authority members.
CARRIED
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995 E9
SECTION I-ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. WATERFRONT TRAIL TOUR (CONTD.)
-Waterfront Regeneration Trust
BACKGROUND
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust is co-ordinating a major 1995 Waterfront Trail Tour led by the
Honourable David Crombie between May 14 and June 11, 1995.
The main objectives of this tour are to:
. build awareness of the Waterfront Trail;
. invite the public to experience the Trail;
. involve public and affinity groups in the Trail;
. create a sense of belonging to and pride in the waterfront;
. showcase the Trail's diversity and connectivity; and
. launch the guidebook series.
The Trust has invited each municipality to participate in the tour by opening its portion of the trail
with a public celebration. In addition, the Trust is hoping that the municipalities can also schedule
some special events along the trail route to highlight the tour objectives.
For the Metropolitan Toronto waterfront, Metropolitan Toronto and the Authority have submitted
the following tentative events and dates:
Date location Event
Friday, May 19 Etobicoke Wetland and/or tree planting
Colonel Samuel Smith Park Unveiling of trail head sign
Marie Curtis Park
Saturday, May 20 EtobicokelToronto Environment Day Humber
Humber River loop Bay Park East. Walk
lakeshore to Humber River
Marsh - Highlight Motel
Strip, Humber River
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge,
Humber River Cultural
Heritage, Natural Diversity
Humber River Marsh.
Tuesday, May 23 Toronto Bike ride from Brickworks to
Don River loop lake Ontario - Highlight
Brickworks, Don River
olantina
E 10 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995
Date Location Event
Wednesday, May 24 Scarborough Boat TriplBus ride from
Ashbridge's Bay Park to
Bluffers Park - Metro and
MTRCA to provide boats.
Event to be determined at
Guild Inn. Highlight
shoreline regeneration work.
Friday, May 25 ScarboroughlPickering Events to be determined.
Rouge River Loop
Other events are also being planned for the Durham sector of the waterfront in Pickering and Ajax.
Date Location Event
Friday, May 26 Pickering Rouge through Petticoat
C.A., Frenchman's Bay
West and across Bay to
Pickering Nuclear Plant
Saturday, May 27 Ajax Crossing of Duffins Creek
(possible event for Duffins
Creek Bridge), community
planting and walk across
Ajax waterfront to
Carruthers Creek.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Authority staff is working with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the member municipalities in
finalizing these events by early March.
The Authority members will be notified of all events which will include the participation of the
Chair, Vice-Chair or designates.
RATIONALE
The waterfront trail tour provides an opportunity to work with our partners to highlight th",
waterfront initiatives and involve the community in specific regeneration events (e.g.; wetland or
tree-shrub planting).
For information contact: Larry Field, extension 243.
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995 E 11
SECTION I-ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ROUGE PARK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND FUNDING REPORT
KEY ISSUE
Receipt of the Final Draft of the Rouge Park Management Structure and Funding Report prepared by
the Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
Res. #W3/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey
Res. #C3/95 Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report and recommendations with
respect to the "Rouge Park Management Structure and Funding Report" be received;
THAT the Authority support the proposed Rouge Watershed and Park Management Council and the
roles and responsibilities identified for it;
THAT the Authority support the position that the Council will achieve its objective for the Rouge
Watershed and Park through the powers of its partners rather than the establishment of a new
agency;
THAT the development of Terms of Reference for the Rouge Watershed and Park Council clearly
define the relationships between the Council and the Park Partners, similar to the Terms of
Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and including the status of Council staff as
employees of the Authority;
THAT in requesting municipal financial support for funding the operations of the Rouge Watershed
and Park Council, it should be clear that this initiative is not an Authority project or program and,
therefore, the funding must be considered as additional and outside the Authority's normal funding;
THAT WHEREAS the initial commitment being requested from the Province and the municipalities is
for a three year period; and,
WHEREAS the creation of a physical infrastructure requires an ongoing and costly commitment to
management and maintenance; and,
WHEREAS the support of the province and the municipalities would be more likely if their annual
contribution to operations was minimized; therefore,
THAT the Authority recommend that no new buildings or structures, including the Interpretive
Centre, be erected during the first three years and that the Council arrange to house staff in and to
operate interpretive programs from existing facilities;
THAT a portion of the capital funding from the federal and provincial governments be set aside for
an endowment fund from which the earned interest could be used for operations;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority be the agent of the Council with respect to land acquisition and
that lands acquired, in the future, for the Park come into the ownership of the Authority.
CARRIED
E 12 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995
SECTION I-ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ROUGE PARK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND FUNDING REPORT (CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust was given the responsibility of recommending to the province, a
management structure for the Rouge Park. In considering a staff report regarding the progress of
discussions with respect to the management structure of the Park, the full Authority, at its meeting
#12/94, held January 27, 1995, took the following action:
Res. #A295/94
THA T the staff report on the status of the discussions regarding the proposed management
structure for the Rouge Park, dated January 26, 1995, be received for information.
AMENDMENT # 1 Res. #A296/94
THA T the Authority's position as stated in Resolution #E40/93, as it related to park
management, be reconfirmed.
AMENDMENT #2 Res. #A297/94
THA T The Honourable David Crombie, Commissioner, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, be
invited to speak to the Authority.
Appended to this report as Attachment A, pages 016 to D21, is an excerpt from the minutes of the
Authority meeting providing the background to this issue and a summary of the Authority's
previous input into discussions regarding the management structure and funding. The Authority
staff report identified four issues requiring resolution. These issues have continued to be discussed
and the Final Draft has dealt with them in the following way.
Issue lal: What does "under the umbrella ()f the Conservation Authority" imply? Does "under
the umbrella of" sufficiently deal with the concerns for duplication of effort and
mandate and does it suffiCiently deal with the legitimate concerns for
accountability?
FINAL DRAFT POSITION
The final report continues to use the "under the umbrella" reference, however, it does indicate a
similarity to the Don Watershed Council. MTRCA is to provide "personnel, legal, accounting and
financial services", however the Council is to "control..its own budget" and "hire its own staff".
The relationship between the Council and the Authority will require further definition. Since the
Council is not a new agency, but, depends upon the existing powers of the Park Partners, its Terms
of Reference will need to formalize its relationship with each of the Park Partners.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the development of Terms of Reference for the Rouge Watershed and Park Council
clearly define the relationships between the Council and the Park Partners, similar to the
Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and including the status of
Council staff as employees of the Authority.
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 3.1995 E 13
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ROUGE PARK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND FUNDING REPORT (CONTD.)
Issue Ib): What is the potential for duplication if a completely separate entity is formed and
how could this be avoided?
FINAL DRAFT POSITION
The final draft report clearly states that "The Rouge Watershed and Park Council is ll21 a new
agency with distinct powers: it derives its powers from the authority of its partners" .
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Authority support the position that the Council will achieve its objective for the
Rouge Watershed and Park through the powers of its partners rather than the establishment
of a new agency.
Issue lc): What is the role of the Park Management Council? Is it merely advisory to the
existing partners or does it have a more active role in the management, planning and
implementation of the Park Plan?
FINAL DRAFT POSITION
Having stated that the Council is not a new agency, the final draft report defines its role as
including:
. setting overall direction and priorities;
. review and approval of management plans, overhead budgets and its own capital
projects;
. review of operational plans and capital projects of Park partners to ensure
compliance with Park plans;
. setting guidelines for public involvement for its projects and plans;
. acting as an advocate for the Park; and
. providing leadership and guidance to the Park partners and others.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Authority support the proposed Rouge Watershed and Park Management Council
and the roles and responsibilities identified for it.
Issue Id): How is the park funded and how are the costs distributed in both the short and long
term?
FINAL DRAFT POSITION
The final draft report identifies funding in two categories: operating funds for a three-year startup
period and capital resources.
Operating funds are to come from the Province and the Authority's member municipalities on a
50/50 basis. The municipal share is to be determined based on the use of discounted equalized
E14 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3. 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ROUGE PARK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND FUNDING REPORT (CONTD.)
assessment and levied as a generally benefitting project. The annual financial impact of the use of
this formula is identified in Table 1, on page 14 of the Final Draft, Rouge Park Manangement
Structure and Funding Report. Given that municipal budgets may be set by the time this funding
arrangement is finalized, the report recommends that the Province "front-end" its contribution in
1995. There is no recommendation for funding beyond the three year period.
Capital funds are to come from federal, provincial and municipal sources and used for land
acquisition, reforestation, fisheries improvement, building an Interpretive Centre, consolidating
archaeological collections, collecting environmental data, developing trails and trail heads,
revegetation and other projects agreed to by the Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT in requesting municipal financial support for funding the operations of the Rouge
Watershed and Park Council, it should be clear that this initiative is not an Authority project
or program and, therefore, the funding must be considered as additional and outside the
Authority's normal funding;
THAT WHEREAS the initial commitment being requested from the Province and the
municipalities is for a three year period; and,
WHEREAS the creation of a physical infrastructure requires an ongoing and costly
commitment to management and maintenance; and,
WHEREAS the support of the province and the municipalities would be more likely if their
annual contribution to operations was minimized; therefore,
THAT the Authority recommend that no new buildings or structures, including the
Interpretive Centre, be erected during the first three years and that the Council arrange to
house staff in and to operate interpretive programs from existing facilities;
THAT a portion of the capital funding from the federal and provincial governments be set
aside for an endowment fund from which the earned interest could be used for operations.
LAND ACQUISITION AND OWNERSHIP
In addition to the four issues previously identified, the issue of land acquisition and title to public
lands within the Park has yet to be resolved. The Authority has identified that it is the principal
public landowner and that additional public lands should come into the title of the Authority.
Where there is an interest or ability for others to manage these lands, the Authority has the power
to enter into agreements for the management of its lands. Such agreements would be subject to
the agreement of the Council, ensure Park values, and be consistent with Park management
requirements. The final draft report makes no recommendation on this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Authority be the agent of the Council with respect to land acquisition and that
lands acquired, in the future, for the Park come into the ownership of the Authority.
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995 E 15
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. ROUGE PARK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND FUNDING REPORT (CONTD.)
CONCLUSION
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust took on a difficl!lt task in attempting to resolve the interests of
the various Park Partners and come up with a recommended Management Structure and Funding
proposal. The final draft report has, largely, addressed the issues raised by the Authority.
Although the proposed Management Structure is not exactly what the Authority would have
preferred, it does provide an opportunity to implement the Rouge Park Plan in a very unique way. It
recognizes and protects the existing roles and responsibilities of the various agencies and proposes
the Council as a forum for collectively and cooperatively achieving the goals and objectives of the
Rouge Park. Staff can support this proposal and recommend it to the Authority.
For information contact: Craig Mather, extension 240 or Alyson Deans, extension 269.
E 16 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1195, MARCH 3, 1995
ATTACHMENT A
PREVIOUS AUTHORITY POSITIONS
REGARDING THE ROUGE PARK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND FUNDING
(taken from the Minutes of Authority Meeting 12/94)
Authority staff have participated in all phases of the development of the Rouge Park Plan. The first
report to the Authority was to Meeting #9/91 of the Water and Related land Management Advisory
Board. This report advised the Board of the staff comments on the Phase 1 Report of the Rouge
Park Planning Committee which were submitted to Mr. Jim French, Chair of the Rouge Valley
Advisory Committee by letter dated December 16, 1991.
This letter comments on several issues, but outlines in some detail why the Authority is the logical
agency to implement the Rouge Park Plan once it is developed.
The Water and Related land Management Board adopted Res. #133 which states:
"THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THA T the staff comments with respect
to the Rouge Valley Park Project - Phase One Report - Background, Principles and Options,
be received. If'
The next time that the Authority dealt with the Rouge Park planning process was in March of 1992.
A staff report dealing with comments on the Phase 2 Report was taken to Executive Committee
Meeting #1/92 and Res. #18 as amended, is as follows:
"THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THA T the intent of the staff's response to
the Rouge Valley Park Project, Phase II Report, be approved.
AMENDMENT Res. # 19
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THA T The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority indicate its willingness to assume responsibility of the Rouge Valley
Park Project;
AND FURTHER THA T a working group of interested citizens, municipalities, agencies and
groups could be established to develop this project and to report to the Conservation and
Related Land Management Advisory Board. "
These comments were forwarded to the Chair of the Rouge Valley Park Advisory Committee by
letter dated March 19, 1992.
In this letter, we again outlined the offer by the Authority to manage the Rouge Park and the
supporting rationale.
Finally at Executive Meeting #2/93, a staff report was presented on the Draft Management Plan for
the Rouge Park. The Executive Committee adopted Res. #E40/93:
"THA T the staff report and recommendations concerning the Draft Rouge Park Management
Plan, January 1993, be received and adopted;
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3.1995 E 17
THA T the Province clarify whether the definition of the valley corridor limit, used in the
Draft Rouge Park Management Plan, is based on the functional requirements of the valley
system or on the need to accommodate park values;
THA T the province reconsider the inclusion of the Momingside tributary within the park
boundaries and altemative methods of ensuring environmental restoration of this
watercourse;
THA T the Rouge River Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy be the starting point for
the development of the Watershed Strategy recommended in the Draft Rouge Park
Management Plan;
THA T the Authority coordinate the update and expansion of the Rouge Comprehensive
Basin Management Strategy to reflect the objectives of the approved Rouge Valley Park
Plan;
THA T the Authority continue toward the development of a Watershed Management
Strategy for each of the watersheds under its jurisdiction in order to ensure their protection,
restoration and enhancement;
THA T, in the opinion of the Authority, future management of the Rouge Park should be the
responsibility of one or more existing agencies and that consideration be given to a
management partnership of publicly accountable agencies.
THA T the final Rouge Park Plan include identification of the costs of implementation; the
sources of funding; and, wherever possible, the delegation of specific responsibilities and
funding to existing publicly accountable agencies; and further,
AND FURTHER THA T copies of this report and recommendations be forwarded to the
Director, Greater Toronto Area Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Regional Municipalities of
Durham and York, and the area municipalities of Markham, Pickering and Scarborough for
their information.
These comments were then forwarded to Mr. Dale Martin, Provincial Facilitator, Ministry of
Municipal Affairs by letter dated April 7, 1993.
Based on the comments received on the Draft Rouge Park Management Plan, the Province of
Ontario released the approved Rouge Park Management Plan in the spring of 1994. This document
set out the vision, goals, objectives and management principles for the park.
The Plan was silent however on who should manage the park and how it should be funded.
As a result, Mr. Crombie of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust was given the responsibility by the
Province, for developing a recommendation on a management structure for the Rouge Park. The
time frame that Mr. Crombie has been given, is to have a management structure in place and
operating by April 1, 1995.
To assist him in this work, Mr. Crombie formed a small working group comprised of staff of the
various agencies involved and the Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS).
This group has been meeting since late last fall to review and discuss various issues, including the
selection of a Park management structure.
E 18 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 3. 1995
In December of 1994, Mr. Crombie produced a "straw man" report which was used to generate
further discussion on the management structure. Based on the input received, a second proposal
has been prepared and has been the subject of further review by all involved.
This second proposal is entitled "Elements of a Rouge Park Management Structure and Funding
Framework" and is attached as page A227 of these minutes.
The process proposed by Mr. Crombie is, that based on comments received to date and additional
input that may be forthcoming over the next few days, a final draft report will be released for
comment. It will be this final draft which will be the subject of more formal review and comment
by the various agencies through their respective Boards and Councils. Shortly after the release of
this draft and the receipt of formal comments, Mr. Crombie will submit his report to the province.
It must be remembered that there is little time available for this all to happen given the deadline of
April 1,1995.
It is for this reason that this staff report is for information only. This report is to provide members
with a sense of what is being discussed, recognizing that there is as yet no firm proposal in place
and that there will be an opportunity for a more detailed review in the very near future.
Given the short time frame, any input and advice that the members may want to suggest at this
time would be appropriate and would be useful to Mr. Crombie as he completes his draft report.
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
The attached proposal, is very close to the position taken by the Authority and supported by
Metropolitan Toronto. There are some basic differences however.
Perhaps the greatest difference, is that the Authority's proposal recommends that the management
structure should be based on our Don Watershed Council and Humber Watershed Task Force
model. That is to say, that these Task Forces or Councils are a creature of the Authority with
reporting relationships to the Authority.
The proposal as attached, suggests that the Rouge Watershed and Park Council would be under the
"umbrella of" the Authority. What this means is not yet fully developed.
To some, this is not acceptable for it is perceived as being responsible to only one of the many
partners involved in the Rouge. The concern being, that this would result in one partner having too
much control.
Mr. Crombie's proposal tries to address this issue by using the term "under the umbrella of" the
Authority and suggesting that the proposed Council would report to all partners on a quarterly
basis.
It is staff's position that since the park and its development is so intertwined with the management
of the Watershed, that there must be some relationship between the Park Management Council and
the Authority.
The very things that the Park Council is being asked to do, parallels almost exactly the roles of the
Don Watershed Council and the Humber Task Force. This role is one of influencing, advocating and
assisting the many groups and agencies that playa role in the watershed. The objective being to
get the agencies and the public to do things differently and to support projects and activities that
will regenerate the Watershed.
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1195. MARCH 3. 1995 E 19
The Authority produced a Rouge Watershed Strategy in 1990. This strategy is referenced in the
Park Plan as a place to start. Staff agree that the Strategy needs some updating and that there is a
need to work on its implementation. The Rouge Park Council would playa key role in the updating
of the Strategy and in its implementation.
There are two important documents which would guide the Park Council and all of the partners.
They are the Rouge Watershed Strategy and the Rouge Park Plan. Whatever structure is set up to
manage the Park, there would be a commitment on behalf of that structure to implement the Plan.
There could be no major deviation from the Plan.
FUNDING
The issue of who should fund the operation and management of the park and how the costs are to
be shared is not fully developed. It is proposed that the Province share in the operating costs with
the municipalities on a 50/50 basis. Which municipalities are to be included and what their share is
to be has yet to be determined.
The provincial position to date, has been that there be no provincial contribution to the operating
costs of the park. This was not acceptable to most of the agencies in the working group and
therefore Mr. Crombie is prepared to recommend to the province that they participate on a 50/50
basis for at least the first three years.
The obvious concern is, what will happen after the first three years as far as Provincial funding is
concerned. The Federal Government has also made it very clear that they will not participate in
funding the operational costs.
There will be capital dollars provided by both the Provincial and Federal Governments at least at this
point. The Federal budget exercise may reduce or eliminate their contribution.
MUNICIPAL COST SHARING
On a 50/50 operational cost sharing basis, the Provincial share would be easily defined. How the
municipal share should be allocated is still up for discussion.
There are a number of models which could be used to calculate the municipal share. Authority
staff have put forward the concept of discounted equalized assessment as an equitable basis for
cost sharing. This is how the Authority raises its municipal share of our operating budget.
This approach could be based on the assessment within each municipality within the Rouge
Watershed, or it could also be based on utilizing the assessment across all of the Authority's
member municipalities which would see the Region of Peel also contributing to the Rouge Park
operation.
STAFFING
It is suggested that there be a staff complement of six people. In order to meet the deadline, Mr.
Crombie has already placed an ad in the papers for the senior staff position called the "General
Manager". The size of the staff support will have to vary depending on the level of funding.
The proposal suggests that the Authority would provide personnel services as part of our
contribution. There is some support for this among the partners however the SRVS does support
this idea.
E 20 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 3,1995
COMMENT
It is staff's view that there are four basic issues that the present proposal raises. Resolution of
these issues must be found, if the proposal is to be acceptable to all of the partners.
These four issues are:
(a) What does "under the umbrella of the Conservation Authority" imply? The proposal as
mentioned, does not meet the Authority's stated position that the proposed Council be
modelled on the Don Watershed Councilor Humber Watershed Task Force or that it be the
responsibility of one or more existing agencies as suggested in Res. #E40/93. To date, the
Authority's model has not been acceptable to the province or the Save the Rouge.
Does "under the umbrella of" sufficiently deal with the concerns for duplication of effort
and mandate and does it sufficiently deal with the legitimate concerns for accountability.
(b) What is the potential for duplication if a completely separate entity is formed and how could
this be avoided?
(c) What is the role of the Park Management Council? Is it merely advisory to the existing
partners or does it have a more active role in the management, planning and implementation
of the Park Plan?
(d) How is the park funded and how are the costs distributed in both the short and long term?
These questions have formed the majority of the discussion, both around the table with Mr.
Crombie and among the various partners.
As indicated, the proposal before us at this point, is very close to the Don Watershed Council. The
only major difference is in the reporting relationships of the Council and the staff.
It is staff's view that the Council must have more than an advisory role but also can not dictate to
the various operating agencies what they should do.
It has been our experience, based on the success of the Don Watershed Task Force, that if its
mandate is described as playing an advisory, advocacy, influencing and an assisting role, that
changes can occur in how the agencies do business and that things do get implemented. Having
the Task Force reporting to the Authority did not interfere with this objective. This should be
especially true when the Authority already has a mandate to manage the watershed and has similar
objectives to that of the Park Plan for the watershed.
OTHER AGENCY POSITIONS
To date, the other major partners have not taken any formal positions on the proposal, although the
Town of Markham Council has been briefed and a report is forthcoming to the Environment and
Open Space Committee of Metropolitan Toronto.
The SRVS have made their own submission to the Scarborough Administrative Committee at their
meeting on January 24. The SRVS position on Mr. Crombie's proposal is that the proposal be
approved in principle with the following modifications:
Structure
JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 3.1995 E 21
(a) that there will be a non-profit Rouge Watershed and Park Corporation, in
cooperation with the MTRCA;
(b) all Partners will have a seat on the Board of Directors.
Staffing
(a) Scarborough will provide personnel services.
Budget
(a) the budget will be allocated through the MTRCA and administered through
Scarborough.
The SRVS also requested Scarborough to recommend:
"that the Mayor or his designate represent Scarborough during the Rouge Park Planning
process, including the selection of the General Manager of the Park and;
that the Committee recommend to Council that Metropolitan Toronto should be encouraged
to participate in the Rouge Park Management as outlined above and;
that the Committee recommend to Council that the City explore with the Provincial, Federal
and Regional governments the establishment of a Trust Fund to supply stable core funding
for the Park. n
The City of Scarborough Administrative Committee recommended to Council that Mr. Crombie be
invited to speak to Council about his proposal and the SRVS proposal.
NEXT STEPS
As indicated, there will be a final draft report from Mr. Crombie which will outline in as much detail
as possible the answers to these and other questions that have arisen during this exercise. As
well, input received over the next two weeks will also be incorporated including any suggestions or
comments from the Authority.
The Authority staff is working in conjunction with staff of Metropolitan Toronto through the
Technical Advisory Committee on Parks and Conservation (TACPAC). These discussions will
continue as well as discussions with the other key agency partners such as Scarborough, the Town
of Markham and the Province of Ontario.
A more detailed report will be brought forward to the Authority as soon as the next report is
available. It is at this time that the Authority will be asked to take a position on what is being
proposed.
Report prepared by: Craig Mather, extension 240.
E 22 JOINT WATER AND CONSERVATION RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1195. MARCH 3.1995
TERMINATION
The Joint meeting terminated at 11 :30 a.m., March 3, 1995.
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
Chair Secretary-Treasurer
bb.
~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
Vthe metropolitan toronto and r;gion conservation authority
minutes
E23
APRIL 21, 1995 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT #2/95
ADVISORY BOARD
The Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the North Theatre of the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, April 21, 1995. The Chair, Richard
Whitehead. called the meeting to order at 10: 15 a.m.
PRESENT Chair Richard Whitehead
Members Randy Barber
Donna Patterson
Deborah Sword
Vice Chair of Authority Lois Hancey
ABSENT Members Maria Augimeri
Michael Di Biase
Jack Layton
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Paul Palleschi
MINUTES
Res. #C4/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Donna Patterson
THA T the minutes of Meeting #5/94 be approved.
CARRIED
Res. #C5/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
,
THAT the minutes of Joint Meeting #1/95 be approved.
CARRIED
E24 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995
- -
DELEGATIONS
launchina of Personal Watercraft - Frenchman's Bay
The following delegations spoke to the above item:
(a) Councillor Sherry Senis, Ward 2, Town of Pickering, requested that the launching of
personal watercraft be banned from all Authority lands.
(b) Jim Dike, Vice Commodore, Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club, spoke in agreement with the
banning of personal watercraft on Frenchman's Bay.
(c) Jacqueline Smart, 829 Fairview Avenue, Pickering, spoke in agreement with the banning of
personal watercraft on Frenchman's Bay.
(d) Siegfried Wall, 639 Breezy Drive, Pickering, spoke in agreement with the banning of
personal watercraft on Frenchman's Bay.
(e) Michael Vollmer, Bombardier Inc., spoke in support of the banning of personal watercraft on
Frenchman's Bay and offered to work with the community to resolve the issues.
(f) Claude Gagne, 537 Downland Drive, Pickering, spoke in favour of enforcing the speed limit
on the Bay.
(g) Greg Poole, Scharlemont Crescent, Agmcourt, spoke as a jet ski user and in opposition to
banning the launching of personal watercraft.
CORRESPONDENCE
Re: Launchina of Personal Watercraft - Frenchman's Bay
Lucilla and Colin Adams Ms. Diane Lawaller
Mr. John Aiken Mr. Bernie Luttmer
Mr. L. Allen Mr. Stephen McKean
Ms. M. Allen Mr. Thomas Mohr
Mr. Terry G. Allen J. D. O'Brien
Mr. John Ark Mrs. Marion O'Brien
John and Susan Bailey Owners of Condominium Apartments,
W.O. Balmbra 120 Random Street
Ms. Helga Bodenweber Mr. Doug Ritchie
Ms. Krystal Bodenweber Mr. R, Robinson, President,
Ms. Bernice Bowman Pickering East Shore Community
Ms. Karen Brown Association
The Byers Family Ms. Lily C. Rose
Mr. and Mrs. 0, Charlebois Councillor Sherry Senis,
Mr. Jim Dike, Vice Commodore, Town of Pickering
Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club Ms. Jacqueline Smart,
Councillor David Farr, plus 122 letters from area residents
Town of Pickering Mr. Larry Smith, Executive Director,
Mr. and Mrs. H. Gaveel Watercraft Training Centre
Mr. and Mrs. J. Grimm Mr. Bruce Taylor, Town Clerk,
Ms. Esther Grzywartz Town of Pickering
F. J. Gunn Mr. Jim Watters, Commodore,
Mr. H. G. Hough, President, Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club
The Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. Mr. Siegfried Wall
Philip and Heather Jackson Mr. Konrad Zeh
Ms. Julieanne Jardine
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 E25
~- - --
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. LAUNCHING OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
-Frenchman's Bay
KEY ISSUE
Amendment of Resolution #A 167/94 regarding a ban on the launching of personal watercraft from
Authority lands, is needed to resolve difficulties with the current wording. Staff is also seeking
assistance of other agencies and the Town of Pickering in alleviating the concerns of local residents
and others regarding the use of personal watercraft on the bay.
Res. #C6/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Donna Patterson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Resolution #A 167/94 be rescinded;
THAT the launching of personal watercraft from Authority property at the west spit of Frenchman's
Bay be designated as a prohibited activity under the provision of the Trespass to Property Act;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to write to the Durham Region Police Commission
requesting that the Durham Regional Police enforce existing regulations to control the use of
personal watercraft on Frenchman's Bay.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Deborah Sword
Res. #C7/95 Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THA T paragraphs two and three of the main motion be amended to read:
THA T the launching of personal watercraft from all Authority owned property abutting Frenchman's
Bay be designated as a prohibited activity under the provisions of the Trespass to Property Act;
THA T staff be directed to communicate with the Durham Region Police Commission requesting that
the Durham Regional Police enforce existing regulations to control the use of personal watercraft
on Frenchman's Bay;
THA T staff facilitate an initial meeting with all interested parties, the Town of Pickering, Durham
Regional Police and the MTRCA to deal with the issues addressed;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the June 16, 1995 meeting of the Conservation and
Related Land Management Advisory Board on the progress of this initial meeting.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
E26 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995
.. . -
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. LAUNCHING OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT (CONTD.)
-Frenchman's Bay
BACKGROUND
Over the past five years, there has been rapid growth in the purchase and use of personal
watercraft (PWC's) in Canada. This growth has been reflected in increased use adjacent to
Authority property at Frenchman's Bay.
During the past three summers, Authority staff has received complaints from residents and users of
Frenchman's Bay regarding the use of PWC's. Complaints have centred around reckless use, noise
and harm to birds nesting in the area of the Bay.
The Authority does not have jurisdiction on the water, and the position taken by staff was that,
while the concerns being expressed were legitimate, the Authority was not in a position to deal
with those concerns. The Authority did however, assist Ajax and Pickering in obtaining information
regarding the establishment of speed limits under the Boating Restriction Regulations made under
the Canada Shipping Act. In October of 1994, boating restrictions and regulations were passed and
gazetted by the federal government for the lower portions of Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek
and a similar speed limit has recently been approved for Frenchman's Bay.
In July, 1994, the Authority passed Resolution #A 167/94:
"THA T staff be directed to take the necessary action to ban the launching of jet skis from
Authority owned land;
AND FURTHER THA T the cooperation and support of local municipalities be requested. "
While this resolution had the effect of preventing launching from any Authority land, discussions
with officials of the Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department determined that problems
related to PWC's across the Metro waterfront were being dealt with effectively by the Metropolitan
Toronto Police Marine Unit, and that, in practice, no ban on launching need be implemented from
Metro-operated lands. This left the Frenchman's Bay area, and lands in the vicinity of Duffins Creek
which are under management agreement with Ajax.
Authority property around Frenchman's Bay was posted in August, 1994 to indicate that the
launching of personal watercraft was prohibited. While no tickets were issued related to this
activity, some warnings were given to individuals launching PWC's.
Since the ban was put in place, users of PWC's who feel the ban is discriminatory and unfair, have
expressed their concerns to staff. In addition, as indicated in a report to the Board in January,
1995, staff met with representatives of Bombardier Inc., and has subsequently had discussion with
the Watercraft Training Centre, regarding this issue. A number of users expressed a desire to
present their concerns to the Board and the Authority. This, in turn, generated voluminous
correspondence, primarily from local residents, reiterating concerns regarding the use of PWC's on
Frenchman's Bay. A list of those residents expressing opposition to the use of PWC's on
Frenchman's Bay is included as correspondence of these minutes (page E24). In addition, the
Authority received correspondence from Larry Smith of the Watercraft Training Centre, suggesting
a number of alternatives to prohibiting launching, and a letter informing the Authority of a
resolution related to this matter passed by Pickering Council.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 E27
- ~
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
, . LAUNCHING OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT (CONTD.)
-Frenchman's Bay
RATIONALE
Since "jet ski" is a brand name and does not include a large proportion of PWC's, it has become
clear that the current Resolution #A 167/94 is flawed and unenforceable. In addition, the only area
where a problem has been clearly identified is at Frenchman's Bay. It is advisable that the
prohibition be made specific to this location in order to avoid confusion on the part of both the
public and other agencies.
The presence of Authority staff at Frenchman's Bay is limited to one or two brief patrols on
weekends with occasional visits during the rest of the week to perform maintenance activities. This
means that enforcement is limited at best. The use of the Trespass to Property Act to try to
control activities on the Bay is ineffective. The activity creating the problem in the community
occurs on waters which are not under the control of the Authority. The banning of launching of
PWC's from our lands can contribute to a solution to this problem; however, access to the Bay can
be achieved without using our lands. Proper control of the problem requires the assistance of the
Durham Regional Police through the enforcement of existing regulations on the Bay.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, extension 252.
2. GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREA
-Proposed Music Festival
KEY ISSUE
To present a unique festival of music and entertainment at Greenwood Conservation Area on
Sunday, August 20, 1995, to increase area visitation, revenues and to promote The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority through attracting a new client group.
Res. #C8/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Donna Patterson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff proposal to present a musical
entertainment festival, focusing on Eastern Canadian music and entertainment called "The
Downhome Festival". at the Greenwood Conservation Area. be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT a special per person charge be approved.
CARRIED
E28 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995
. - -
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREA (CONTD.)
-Proposed Music Festival
BACKGROUND
Until recently, Greenwood Conservation Area could have been described as "being off the beaten
track". The east end of the watershed has been less developed and less densely populated,
providing a smaller market to draw from. Until recently there was no direct highway access from
Highway 401 to Greenwood. These circumstances have changed, presenting new opportunities.
Durham Region is now described as one of the fastest growing communities in the Greater Toronto
Area and now, with its nearby neighbour Scarborough, represents a population base of
approximately 960,000.
Since 1989, staff has become much more active in promoting Greenwood. Emphasis has been
placed on fostering an excellent working relationship with guiding and scouting groups with our
group camp facilities, in promoting our picnicking facilities and the development of a successful Fall
Festival. In addition, Greenwood staff has been proactive in community outreach promotion in
cooperation with Petticoat Creek Conservation Area through mall displays and involvement with
various school groups.
A number of improvements have been made to Greenwood, including walking trails, picnic shelters,
washrooms and upgraded water facilities. Wildlife interpretation programs built around a Bluebird
nesting program, the Birdwalk Trail and other activities are evolving.
All improvements, programs and promotions have contributed to creating a better awareness of the
MTRCA and of Greenwood Conservation Area,
RA TIONALE
The success of past special and annual events at Greenwood have encouraged staff to examine
other opportunities to increase attendance and revenue. Investigations have shown that other
events similar to the "Downhome" proposal through private venues have been very well attended.
One such event in Cambridge, Ontario, has been occurring for approximately 20 years and now
boasts a visitation of about 20,000 persons a year. Currently, there are no events catering to the
populations in Eastern Toronto.
The proposal" Downhome Festival", at Greenwood is meant to be a one day special event focusing
on the unique music and entertainment of Canada's east coast culture. It will consist of a colour
guard parade including bagpipe performances to open the show followed by musical performances
by several east coast performers as well as fiddling and clogging demonstrations. It will include
retail sales venues featuring Eastern Canadian wares and an opportunity to sample east coast food.
There will also be opportunities for our own Food Services Section through food sales and a LCBO
licensed "Beer Garden".
Staff has made preliminary contact with a number of persons and organizations who have shown a
positive interest in participating. These groups include a promoter of east coast musical talent and
the associate editor of "Downhomer" magazine. Staff feel that these two persons will be an
integral part of the festival's success.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 E29
. - -
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREA (CONTD.)
-Proposed Music Festival
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE/PROPOSAL
The staff proposal is to run a one day special event as detailed previously. Staff will be responsible
for organizing the entertainment, promotions, site preparation and staffing.
Community Contact
Efforts will be made to inform local community groups and neighbours of the event through an
event awareness session by invitation. Details of the event will be presented for comment to
ensure awareness and foster support.
MarketinQ and Promotion
A comprehensive marketing and advertising campaign is required well in advance of the event and
will be a key factor to the success of the event. Head Office and area staff will participate in the
promotion including:
. preparation and distribution of posters and handbills
. preparing newspaper advertisements for the Toronto Sun and Downhome Magazine
. preparation of radio advertisement through CHIN radio's" Points East" program and Durham
Region's KX96 FM radio
. advertisement through local cable TV programs.
Site Preparation and Facilities Required
The" Downhome" festival will take place in the Sand pit picnic area of Greenwood, a natural
amphitheatre with room sufficient for an event of up to 5,000 persons. Other facilities, such as
food services, beer gardens and retail sales, will be accommodated in the nearby Birchview area
adjacent to the Sandpit. Parking will be accommodated in the main parking area and in other picnic
areas as required.
In addition to the above existing facilities, staff will make arrangements for additional portable
washrooms, drinking water, first-aid station, sound system, marquee tent and stage.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A. Projected Operating Expenditure $12,700
. Additional Staffing $500
. Performance Fees $6,000
. Promotion $3,000
(Kx96 Radio and Newspaper $1,500.00 each)
. Banners and Signs $500
. Printing $500
. Stage Rental $500
. Sound System Rental $400
. Generator Rental $200
. Additional Washrooms/Water $ 1 ,000
. Saint John's First Aid $100
For details of staffing, performance and promotion see Appendix I, page E30.
E30 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREA (CONTD.)
-Proposed Music Festival
B. Projected Revenue $30,500
,
Revenue is based on 2,500 adults attending at $7.50 per adult and 1,000 children
attending at $3.25 per child age 5 to 15. Children under 5 will be admitted free.
. 2500 adults at $7.50 each $18,750
. 1000 children at $3.25 each $3,250
Additional Revenue
. Food Services (Net) $2,500
. Beer Garden (Net) $5,000
. Retail Sales (Net) $ 1 ,000
Based on the above projections, operating costs would be recovered with moderate attendance.
FUTURE BENEFITS/OPPORTUNITIES
This one day event will provide an opportunity to promote other Authority programs and facilities
as well as promoting material relevant to the Authority's mandate and objectives. It will provide a
positive interaction with the local community and introduce future customers to the recreational
opportunities at Greenwood Conservation Area.
APPENDIX I
Estimation of Staff Numbers - "Downhome Festival"
Item Number
Gate staff and hospitality 4
Maintenance and parking 6
SupervisOty 2
Security 6
Supervisor 1: Gate and hospitality staff
Parking
Supervisor 2: Maintenance including garbage, washrooms, etc.
Enforcement to be coordinated between enforcement staff and P.O. 0.' s with supervisory authority
designated to one enforcement staff member. Food Services staff to be coordinated by Food
Services Manager.
Report prepared by: Mark Hillis (905-683-2070)
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,'1995 E31
. - -
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA
-Proposed Evening Events
KEY ISSUE
To present a series of three evening concerts at Heart Lake Conservation Area during the summer
of 1995 to increase weekday visitation, revenues, and promote The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority through attracting a new client group.
Res. #C9/95 Moved by: Donna Patterson
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff proposal to present a series of
evening musical concerts called .. An Evening Under the Stars" at Heart lake Conservation Area,
during the summer of 1995. be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT a special per person charge be approved.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #12/94, January 27, 1995, Resolution #A307/94 was approved as follows:
"THA T staff be directed to pursue the proposal to present a series of evening musical
concerts at Heart Lake Conservation Area during the summer of 1995;
AND FURTHER THA T a detailed report be presented to the April 21, 1995, meeting of the
Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board. "
Weekend visitation at Heart Lake is presently running close to capacity. Qppo'rtunities to increase
revenue must target weekdays. Weekday programs will provide opportunities to increase visitation
and revenue without impacting peak periods and attract a new client group. Since 1986 Heart
Lake staff has successfully introduced a number of special event and community outreach
programs. Including:
- Annual Fall Festival
Fishing derbies for adults and children
- Fly fishing seminars
Learn to fish programs
Terry Fox Forest Planting
- Regionally and provincially sanctioned cross-country runs in cooperation with local
school boards
- Cross-country ski trails
In addition, staff have worked collaboratively with other areas and divisions to promote and
enhance Heart Lakes programs, particularly fishing opportunities. Local sponsors have been
extremely generous in donating prizes.
E32 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA (CONTD.)
-Proposed Evening Events
In the ten year period from 1985 to 1994, Heart Lake revenues have increased from $54,000 in
1985, to $159,000 in 1994, while expenditures have increased from $222,000 to $388,000. This
represents a 70.8% increase in return on the dollar (from $0.24 in 1985 to $0.41 in 1994).
All special events have helped to promote the regular recreation programs of picnicking, swimming,
fishing, boating, and hiking at Heart Lake.
RATIONALE
The success of past special and annual events has encouraged staff to examine other opportunities
to increase attendance and revenue. Visitor surveys generally identify the individuals and groups
frequenting our conservation areas, however it is difficult to determine the client groups who are
not visiting. Special events geared to target groups enhance our opportunities to reach a greater
segment of potential visitors.
Staff has made preliminary contact with a number of organizations and they have shown a positive
interest in participating. These groups include the Brampton Symphony Orchestra, the Brampton
Jazz Band, the Brampton Concert Band, the Caledon Symphony Orchestra, and Mundy's Bay Folk
Society in Midland.
According to City of Brampton staff, no outdoor concerts are offered in Brampton, however
Brampton Jazz Band and Brampton Symphony Orchestra practice at Gage Park.
Heart Lake has parking for approximately 1,000 vehicles and a natural outdoor amphitheatre which
can easily accommodate 4,000 to 5,000 people.
Staff has investigated similar programs at Ontario Place, Molsons Park, Canada's Wonderland and
High Park through site visits and discussions with organizers for these facilities. In addition, staff
has met with managers of facilities of similar size to Heart Lake, specifically Gage Park in
Brampton, Earl Bales in Metro Toronto, and Wye Marsh in Midland. This investigation has
encouraged Authority staff and helped to determine requirements for on-site facilities, operations
and promotion for Heart Lake's proposed evening concert program.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE/PROPOSAL
The staff proposal is to run a series of weekday evening concerts of classical, folk, symphony
music, and children's entertainers. Staff will be responsible for organizing the entertainment,
promotions, site preparation and staffing. Tentative bookings have been arranged with the
following organizations:
Brampton Jazz and Concert Band: June 21
Brampton Symphony Orchestra: July 19
Children's entertainment proposal: August 16 (unconfirmed)
Additional staffing arrangements have been made with other conservation areas and the
Authority's Food Services section has agreed to provide food sales for the concerts.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS 112/95, APRIL 21, 1995 E33
- -
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIOERA TION
3. HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA (CONTO.)
-Proposed Evening Events
Communitv Contact
Staff has had preliminary discussions with the local community through a parent/teacher
association to ensure their awareness of programs at Heart Lake and engender their support. Staff
attended another association which met on April 12 to keep the local community aware of our
program proposal.
City of Brampton By-law Enforcement Supervisor, G.C.Sherman, was contacted regarding
Brampton's noise by-law and indicated he would notify area Councillors of our proposal. Further
action was unnecessary at this time.
Peel Regional Police were contacted and indicated they have no concerns with the concert
program.
Marketinq and Promotion
A comprehensive promotion, marketing and advertising campaign is required well in advance of the
events and is key to the success of the program. Head office and area staff will participate in
promotion including:
- printing of posters; preparing newspaper advertisements; press releases to
watershed media;
distribution of posters will include other areas, Kortright, and Black Creek Pioneer
Village, as well as local malls, libraries, music schools, and art council;
- newspaper advertisements will be placed in the Toronto Sun, Mississauga News,
and Brampton Guardian the week of the event; and The Toronto Life magazine
- radio and cable TV coming events programs will be provided information on the
events.
Site Facilities
Capital costs during the first year will include:
- hydro to the site
purchase of a PA system (or rent)
stage seating
lighting
Some of these capital items are transferable to other areas for special events as well as at Heart
Lake's other special events.
E34 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA (CONTD.)
-Proposed Evening Events
FUTURE BENEFITS/OPPORTUNITIES
The evening concert program will provide the opportunity to promote other Authority programs,
facilities, as well as distributing material relating to the Authority's mission statement. It would
provide a positive interaction with local community and an opportunity for local musical groups to
perform. The success of the evening concerts may provide the background for future concerts at
Heart Lake and other Areas and provide the ground work for larger concerts.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A. Projected Expenditures - Capital $5,000
Hydro
PA System
Stage Seating
Lighting
B. Projected Expenditures - Operating $ 9,000
Additional Event Staffing 1,000
Honourariums/Performance Fees 2,000
Promotion 3,000
Signs 500
Printing 1,000
Stage rental 1,500
C. Projected Revenue $18,000
Revenue is based on three concert evenings and
special event fees of $ 5.00 adult. $ 2.50 student,
and $1.25 child.
Average of 500 carsl1200 people/ per concert
900 adults x $5.00 =$4,500.
100 students x 2.50 = 250.
200 children x 1.25 = 250.
$5,000. x 3 concerts = $15,000
Food Services - $1,000 concert x 3 concerts = $3,000
Based on the above projection, operating and capital costs would be recovered with moderate
attendance.
Report prepared by: AI Leach, extension 251.
For information contact: Martha Wilson (905-846-2646)
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS 112/95, APRIL 21, 1995 E35
.- - -
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. SKI DAGMAR
-Extension of Licence Agreement for Summer Use
KEY ISSUE
Staff is in receipt of a request from Ski Dagmar to extend the current licence agreement for the use
of Authority lands for cross country skiing to include summer use. This summer activity would
include the provision of horse back riding and mountain biking.
Res. #C10/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Randy Barber
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to negotiate a suitable
licence agreement with Ski Dagmar for the use of the Storrey Property for horseback trail rides and
mountain biking;
AND FURTHER THAT the licence agreement include provision for the Authority to receive a
percentage of the gross revenue generated by these activities, along with appropriate terms and
conditions to protect the Authority's interests. and the environmental integrity of the lands under
agreement.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Ski Dagmar operates an alpine ski facility adjacent to Authority lands in the Glen Major area. For
the past twenty years, Dagmar has entered into an annual licence agreement with the Authority to
provide cross country ski trails on Authority property as part of their ski operation. This licence
agreement has been for the winter period only, and, in return for the use of the trails, Dagmar has
provided the Authority with a base rent and a percentage of the gross revenues for cross country
ski operations. In order to supplement their winter operations, and respond to market demand,
Dagmar would like to extend trail use to include mountain bikes and horseback riding in the
summer months. They would propose to charge for these activities and would remit a percentage
to the Authority on the same basis as during the winter.
There is currently unauthorized mountain bike use and horseback riding occurring in the Glen Major
area. Unfortunately, the Authority lacks the resources to adequately monitor and control this use.
Staff has had preliminary discussion with Dagmar and feels that the proposed operation, with
appropriate terms and conditions in place, IS suitable for the location. Dagmar is proposing to
separate the riding and mountain bike operations and would extend their winter insurance to cover
the additional uses.
During 1994, Dagmar hosted the Ontario Mountain Bike Championships. Part of the course was
routed on Authority lands under a permit. Authority staff monitored the use during the event, and it
would appear that the terrain and soils in the Storrey property allow for mountain bike use with
minimal impact.
E36 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995
"- -- --
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. SKI DAGMAR (CONTD.)
-Extension of Licence Agreement for Summer Use
RA TIONALE
The Authority currently provides opportunity for mountain biking and trail rides on horseback in the
Humber River watershed. Mountain biking is permitted at Albion Hills and horseback riding is
provided through the Authority's agreement with Claireville Ranch. The request from Dagmar
provides an opportunity to offer similar activities in the east end of the Authority's jurisdiction.
Preliminary investigation suggests that impacts on the subject property will be minimal and entering
into an agreement with proper conditions will also assist the Authority to control, supervise and
monitor use on our other lands in this area.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Dagmar is proposing that the Authority receive a percentage of their gross revenue from mountain
bike and horseback riding activities. While the revenues accruing from this activity are difficult to
predict in the first year, there is no cost to the Authority, and Dagmar will assume all financial risk
of the venture.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens (extension 252)
5. ALBION HillS FIELD CENTRE DAIRY FARM
-Recruiting a New Farm Manager
KEY ISSUE
Confirmation of the demonstration dairy farm component of the Albion Hills Field Centre program
and approval to begin the process of recruiting a new farm manager is required.
Res. #C11/95 Moved by: Donna Patterson
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to recruit a new farm
manager and to negotiate a farm management agreement which supports the educational. heritage
and watershed management objectives of the Authority.
CARRIED
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 E37
.. - ---.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. ALBION HILLS FIELD CENTRE DAIRY FARM (CONTD.)
-Recruiting a New Farm Manager
BACKGROUND
Since the mid 1960' s the Authority has operated the farm at Albion Hills under agreement. The
farm has been an integral component of the Field Centre's program offerings and continues to be a
popular program with both customers of the Authority's education program and that of the
Etobicoke Board of Education which shares the site.
For the past 12 years, the current farm manager, Dwight Matson, has developed and raised his
herd of dairy cattle and has consistently received awards for quality milk and livestock. The
Authority owns milk quota, most of which was granted to us by the Milk Marketing Board free of
charge and some of which was purchased a number of years ago. Our present quota totals the
equivalent of 40 head which represents the average herd size in Ontario and the threshold number
of cattle to make a viable operation.
Mr, Matson has recently notified the Authority of his intentions to terminate his lease with us
effective August 1, 1995, in accordance with the existing agreement.
The farm manager supplies the livestock, machinery and expertise needed to run a dairy farm. In
addition, the farm manager allows public visitation to his operation and provides a learning
experience through interaction with students and other visitors. The Authority supplies the farm
buildings, milkhouse equipment, milk quota and land required. Quota for 32 head of cattle was
given to the Authority a number of years ago, free of charge, by the Milk Marketing Board to
support our demonstration efforts, This was augmented by quota for eight head which was
purchased by the Authority, The farm manager is responsible for all costs of operating the farm
including the production of feed crops. The Milk Marketing Board pays the Authority directly for
the milk produced at the farm and the Authority de'ducts a rent of $1,300 per month ($15,600 per
year) from the milk cheque and forwards the balance to the farm manager, The rent collected from
the farm manager and a $9,000 contribution from the Etobicoke Board of Education towards farm
operating costs are applied against whatever costs we incur as landlords (i.e., taxes, insurance,
major repairs, etc.). Farm tax rebates from the Province (currently 75%) are received on property
tax payments since this is a bona fide farm operation. Generally speaking, the cost of farm
operations to the Authority is offset entirely by revenues.
Approximately 5,200 students visit the Albion Hills Field Centre and the associated facility run by
the Etobicoke Board of Education. Over 70 per cent of the visitors to these centres participate in
farm programs which deal with a wide variety of topics ranging from "Where does milk come
from?" to "What impacts do farms have on water quality?". In addition, visits by OMAF (i.e., 4H
Clubs), MOEE (i.e., CURB Program demonstration) and members of the farm community are made
to view ongoing programs and farm practices. The Albion Hills Dairy Farm has gained a reputation
as the only demonstration dairy operation in thiS part of the Province and people wanting to visit
such a facility are often referred to us by the Milk Marketing Board, University of Guelph and
others.
The farm presents a unique opportunity for the Authority to demonstrate good land stewardship
practices in a real world setting and to educate a large group of young people about the agricultural
heritage of Ontario. It is not a "petting zoo" type of experience but, rather, an economically viable
commercial operation. Its location on the Oak Ridges Moraine in the upper watershed of the
E38 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95. APRIL 21. 1995
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. ALBION HILLS FIELD CENTRE DAIRY FARM (CONTD.)
-Recruiting a New Farm Manager
Humber River and within the boundaries of the Albion Hills Conservation Area will, through the
development of the Humber River Strategy and the ultimate implementation of recommendations,
increase its relevance to watershed management by providing the potential for more and better
communications opportunities to the general public.
In discussing the importance of the farm program at Albion Hills relative to other initiatives which
could be pursued by reallocating the resources dedicated to the program, staff remain convinced
that the continued operation of the farm in a manner which emphasizes partnerships and supports
the watershed management focus of the Authority is the best course of action.
RATIONALE
If an effective transition to a new farm manager is to occur, the process of recruitment, lease
negotiation and phase in of the new operator must begin as soon as possible. In order to arrive at
the conclusion that the program continues to be relevant with respect to the Authority's corporate
strategy, some analysis of the program, its financial implications and delivery mechanisms is
required,
Report prepared by: Ken Owen (Extension 255)
6. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE
-Fund Raising Projects 1995 - 1996
KEY ISSUE
Request to The Conservation Foundation for 1995-1996 fund raising activities for Black Creek
Pioneer Village.
Res. #C12/95 Moved by: Donna Patterson
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Black Creek Pioneer Village restoration
and facility improvement projects be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority request The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto to
support an umbrella project for the restoration of various buildings and facilities for Black Creek
Pioneer Village, as the basis for the 1995-1996 fund raising activities, to the amount of
$1,200,000 including the Foundation's fund raising contingency.
CARRIED
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 E39
. - -
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE (CONTD.)
-Fund Raising Projects 1995 - 1996
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 1994, at Meeting #3/94 of The Conservation Foundation Board of Directors, the
Board approved the recommendations to re-introduce Black Creek Pioneer Village as a component
of its fund raising activities, and established that fund raising activities would be for projects which
will renew and restore existing facilities, in order to stimulate visitor attendance and increase Black
Creek Pioneer Village's ability to generate income.
To further support this initiative, at Meeting #3/94 the Board of Directors of The Conservation
Foundation approved the recommendation to allocate up to $140,000 from the Black Creek Pioneer
Village Growth Endowment Fund over a two year period to hire suitable personnel in connection
with the Black Creek revitalization undertaking.
A joint Authority/Foundation Steering Committee was established, terms of reference developed,
and a development officer was hired in March, 1995. The purpose of this initiative is to develop a
base of volunteers and donors who will, over the long term, assist in the projects of the Foundation
generally; and, in the short term, direct the majority of their efforts to the revitalization of Black
Creek Pioneer Village,
The tasks identified for Black Creek Pioneer Village fund raising include:
preparation of a strategic plan for developing a sponsorship program for Village
buildings, including pnmary donors, volunteers, and annual giving supporters,
communications, and recognition;
establishment of targets by which progress can be monitored, with an overall goal
of having a program established and operating within two years of commencement;
recruitment and training of volunteers for Foundation committees and projects;
co-ordination of the approach to donors and volunteers with other undertakings of
the Foundation, to ensure consistency and avoid inappropriate duplication.
Priority renewal projects at Black Creek have been identified. Preliminary cost estimates have been
undertaken. Detailed cost estimates are now under way, funded 50% through a matching grant
from the Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Recreation, Black Creek has hired a restoration architect
to conduct a thorough condition assessment of the Stong Complex and prepare the preservation
plan for restoration and ongoing maintenance.
The Conservation Foundation has indicated that $1,000,000 for Black Creek Pioneer Village is' a
reasonable target in the 1995-1996 period, given the mix of other campaigns currently under way.
The Black Creek priority projects include restoration/repair of four historic buildings and one modern
area.
E40 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995
. -- .---.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE (CONTD.)
-Fund Raising Projects 1995 - 1996
Burwick House
Built in 1844 for Rowland Burr, entrepreneur and merchant miller, this one and one half storey
structure was moved and restored with adjoining barn and kitchen wing in 1960-61. Critical
structural problems require prompt attention. Work required includes complete re-roofing, including
re-shingling and structural repairs; foundation repair and restoration to improve drainage; chimney,
fireplace and bake oven repair; replacement and repair of windows, replacement of wallpaper,
carpeting, and interior and exterior painting. To accomplish this project, all furnishings must be
removed and stored, and eight horses boarded out.
Burwick Stable
Interior replacement of stalls and stable flooring, and raising of loft floor required. Current stalls are
deficient, and insufficient drainage has impregnated stable flooring with contaminated material
causing considerable foot infections for horses, and health hazard for staff.
Stong Grain Barn
Squared log cantilever barn with framed exterior walls, built in 1825. This large one storey
structure incorporated both Pennsylvania and English barn building styles and was designed to
house hay and grain, provide threshing space and to shelter animals under the cantilever. Repairs
required include replacement of rotted mud sill, repair columns and replacement sections of siding,
doors and ramps; repair of foundation wall and stalls; replace wooden roofing, removal of straw
and hay and repair cribs.
Stong Second House
Built in 1832, an impressive two storey log farm house of Pennsylvania German design, built on a
stone foundation, of large squared pine logs and covered with clapboard siding, on original site.
Work required includes archaeological investigation prior to grading, repairs to foundation walling,
replacement of wooden roof and repairs to wood deck, including underpayment and facia repair
and repainting.
Stong First House
Built circa 1800, this very early log cabin is part of the original five building farmstead complex.
Log rot due to moisture requires log replacement and repairs, foundation wall repair, complete
rechinking of house and smoke house, and regrading to expose foundation and remove wood from
the soil.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 E41
. - - ,.-,..
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE (CONTD.)
-Fund Raising Projects 1995 - 1996
Pioneer Patio
Poor Quality hemlock flooring has rotted, requiring complete replacement of stringers and flooring
before tenting can be installed. The Pioneer Patio is a revenue generator for events and banquets,
but financial potential is not currently being realized because deficient flooring can no longer
maintain tenting. The renaming of the Pioneer Patio in recognition of a donor represents an
attractive fund raising opportunity.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The detailed financial analysis is currently under way, to be completed by July, 1995. The
estimated cost of remedial work is approximately $1,000,000, to be confirmed through the
completion of the architectural assessment and detailed cost analysis by mid-summer. Final project
details will go forward to The Conservation Foundation at the September meeting of the Board of
Directors.
At this time, the Authority will be requesting The Conservation Foundation to consider raising up to
$1,200,000 for various restoration projects, including the Foundation's fund raising contingency.
Report prepared by: Marty Brent (Extension 408)
TERMINA TION
The meeting terminated at 11 :35 a.m., April 21, 1995.
Richard Whitehead Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
bb.
~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
", the metropolitan toronto andregion conservation authority
minutes E42
JUNE 16. 1995 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT #3/95
ADVISORY BOARD
The Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre of the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, June 16, 1995. The Chair, Richard
Whitehead, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT Chair Richard Whitehead
Members Maria Augimeri
Randy Barber
Michael Di Biase
Deborah Sword
Vice Chair of Authority Lois Hancey
ABSENT Members Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Paul Palleschi
Donna Patterson
MINUTES
Res. #C13/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THAT the minutes of Meeting #2/95 be approved.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Councillor Joyce Frustaglio, Councillor, the Regional Municipality of York, dated
May 23, 1995, re: request for motion on fees policy to allow local residents free admission to
areas.
Res. #C14/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THAT the correspondence from Councillor Joyce Frustaglio be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff respond to the Councillor and identify the issues involved.
CARRIED
E43 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #3/95. JUNE 16. 1995
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. CONSERVATION AREAS
-Use of Inflatable Boats and Other Inflatable Objects
KEY ISSUE
A change in the Authority's Policy and Procedures for Water Based Activities to permit the use of
DOT rated inflatable boats on Authority property. and the use of various inflatable objects in
swimming areas is recommended.
Res. #C15/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority Policv and Procedures for Water Based Activities (revised November 25.
1994) be amended as follows:
Swimming Area Rules. Section (a):
Inflatable objects other than rafts. dinghies and inner tubes are permitted...
be changed to
Inflatable objects are permitted;
Boating Rules. Section (d):
Rubber rafts or other inflatable boats are prohibited.
be changed to
DOT rated inflatable boats only. are permitted.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
For many years the Authority has prohibited the use of inflatable boats on its property. This has
created a great deal of public concern in that the quality and safety of inflatable boats varies
greatly, and some users feel that safe craft are being unfairly prohibited. Until recently all inflatable
objects were prohibited from Authority swimming areas. Beginning last summer, some inflatable
objects were permitted at certain locations.
RA TIONALE
It is the opinion of staff -that many inflatable boats are.more than acceptable for use at those
properties where the Authority permits boating. The existing blanket prohibition is somewhat
arbitrary and has lead to dissatisfaction on the part of visitors. Higher quality inflatable boats
generally carry a federal Department of Transport rating sticker indicating capacity. This provides
staff with a convenient means of distinguishing safe inflatable boats.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 16, 1995 E44
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. CONSERVATION AREAS
-Use of Inflatable Boats and Other Inflatable Objects
Those locations which permitted the use of inflatable objects in their swimming areas last summer
reported no problems from the point of view of safe operations. They did however, experience
increased use and improved visitor satisfaction.
It is felt that the policy changes suggested will result in more satisfied users and will help the
Authority in attracting and keeping more visitors. This will assist the Facilities and Operations
Division in meeting revenue targets while better serving the public.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, extension 252.
2. HARVEST FEST
-Special Per Person Fee
KEY ISSUE
Approval is requested for the institution of a special per person fee for Harvest Fest to be held at
Bruce's Mill.
Res.#C16/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Randy Barber
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a special per person fee be charged for
Harvest Fest to be held annually at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1992, the staff at Bruce's Mill initiated a new autumn event called Harvest Fest. This event,
which features displays of steam engines and antique tractors, along with crafts, entertainment,
and a farmer's market has grown steadily in popularity. Last year the two day event attracted a
total of 3,200 visitors.
RATIONALE
Staff has attended a number of other steam shows in the past few years and these visits suggest
that the public are willing to pay a premium fee for this type of event. The quality and variety of
displays at Bruce's Mill has been improved during the past three years providing greater value for
visitors. Given these two factors, staff is of the opinion that, in charging the Authority's regular
conservation area admission fees, Harvest Fest is under-priced. Consequently, the charging of a
premium fee is proposed.
E45 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #3/95, JUNE 16. 1995
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. HARVEST FEST (CONTD.)
-Special Per Person Fee
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Revenues derived from gate fees at Harvest Fest '94 were $6,812. This was based on regular
admission charges of $2.50 for adults, $1.25 for children, and $1.75 for seniors. In 1995, staff is
proposing to charge $5.00 for adults, $2.50 for children and $3.50 for seniors. Assuming that
increased fees will reduce attendance somewhat, it is estimated that the new fees will still increase
gate revenues by $4,000.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, extension 252
3. AL TONA FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
KEY ISSUE
Approval of the Altona Forest Environmental Management Plan.
Res. #C17/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Altona Forest Environmental
Management Plan. dated June 1995. be approved;
THA T any additional comments received before June 23. 1995 from Dr. Speirs. the Friends of
Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek or others be incorporated into the plan. where appropriate, and
staff bring any substantive changes to the attention of the Authority;
AND FURTHER THAT the 10 ha Ecological Reserve be formally designated the J. Murray Speirs
Ecological Reserve. once Dr. Speirs has donated approximately 2.8 ha of his land to be included as
part of the Altona Forest property.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Authority owns approximately 45 ha of environmentally significant land known as the Altona
Forest property. Diverse plant communities exist with over 300 species being reported. The
property provides interior forest habitats in close proximity to Lake Ontario which are rare within
the Greater Toronto Area. Altona forest is an important link in an inter-regional corridor between
the Rouge and Duffins watersheds.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 16,1995 E46
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. AL TONA FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
It has been suggested by Dr. J. Murray Speirs, one of Ontario's foremost field ornithologist, that
approximately 2.8 ha of his land be donated to the Authority to be included as part of the Altona
Forest. It is proposed that a parcel of approximately 10 ha, including the Speirs property, a portion
of the DiNardo property and a portion of the existing Authority land be designated an Ecological
Reserve for scientific and lay studies of birds, plants and other wildlife. Dr. Speir's contribution
and vision of the properties as an Ecological Reserve would be recognized by naming the 10 ha plot
in his honour.
To assist in the negotiations with Dr. Speirs for the donation of his property, it was important
earlier this year for the Authority to formally endorse the interim management plan including the
concept of an Ecological Reserve within the Altona Forest. Consequently, a staff report was
presented to the Executive Committee and subsequently to the Authority at meeting #1/95 held on
February 24, 1995. Resolution #A26/95 was adopted and states:
"THA T the Altona Forest Interim Environmental Management Plan, dated February 1995, be
endorsed;
THA T the Executive Committee support the concept of a management plan for the Altona
Forest that will preserve the bird sanctuary;
AND FURTHER THA T the finalized Altona Forest Interim Environmental Management Plan
be presented to the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board for review
and approval prior to presentation to the full Authority for approval. "
Since the Altona Forest Interim Environmental Management Plan was endorsed, additional
comments have been received and where appropriate, incorporated into the plan. The revisions
have been made based on extensive consultation with the Friends of the Altona Forest and
Petticoat Creek and input by Authority staff, MNR, Town of Pickering, Pickering Naturalists,
Canadian Wildflower Society, and Dr. Speirs and his lawyer.
The Altona Forest Environmental Management Plan will direct The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority in the actions and activities it takes with regard to managing the Altona
Forest property.
The first priority is to direct actions for the short-term needs of the Altona Forest property which
includes the following site securement activities:
(a) fencing the Altona Forest property;
(b) providing limited points for pedestrian access;
(c) posting appropriate signage;
(d) establishing the 10 hectare J. Murray Speirs Ecological Reserve with 30 metre grid
reference points, within the larger Altona Forest property;
(e) hazard tree removal;
(f) removal of debris and refuse.
The second priority is to direct the long term management activities of the Altona Forest property.
E47 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #3/95. JUNE 16. 1995
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. AlTONA FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.)
In summary, the long term management activities include:
(a) managing vegetation to rehabilitate and enhance habitat;
(b) review the requirements for the preparation of operating plans and edge
management plans;
(c) further property acquisition;
(d) establish a Community Advisory Council;
(e) monitoring and managing for sustainable levels of public use within the Altona
Forest property in keeping with the goals and objectives of this Plan;
(f) encouraging environmental monitoring programs, scientific and lay studies in the J.
Murray Speirs Ecological Reserve;
(g) encouraging and assisting schools and community groups that use the Altona Forest
property as part of their education program.
Detailed operating plans will be prepared to direct the specific implementation activities as they are
required.
The Altona Forest property will provide an area for passive outdoor activities that are compatible
with the natural environment and respect the land's environmental carrying capacity. Public uses
such as hiking, bird watching and wildlife photography are permitted. More active uses are not
permitted. Public uses beyond the existing passive activities will be subject to the Authority's
Public Use Strategy process to determine their compatibility with the management goals,
objectives, policies and guidelines as set out in this plan.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The short term site securement activities are estimated to cost approximately $75,000. These
funds would be obtained from the land acquisition project for the Altona Forest Environmental
Significant Area.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
(a) Consider any additional comments received before June 23, 1995 from Dr. Speirs, the
Friends of Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek or others and incorporate these comments into
the plan where appropriate.
(b) Finalize the land acquisitions within the Altona Forest project boundary.
(c) Complete the site securement activities.
(d) Investigate opportunities for public education and participation in the long term
management of the property.
(e) Designate the 10 ha Ecological Reserve parcel in honour of Dr. J. Murray Speirs.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins (ext. 211).
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95. JUNE 16. 1995 E48
-
SECTION IV -ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
4. USE OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT AT FRENCHMAN'S BAY
-Public Information Meeting
KEY ISSUE
Staff has been directed to report to the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory
Board regarding progress in setting up a meeting of interested parties concerning the use of
personal watercraft at Frenchman's Bay.
Res. #C18/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THA T the verbal report from staff. regarding the progress made in setting up a meeting of
interested parties concerned with the use of personal watercraft at Frenchman's Bay, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND .
At Meeting #1/95 of the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board, staff was
directed "in conjunction with the Town of Pickering, facilitate an initial meeting with all interested
parties". A meeting has been scheduled for June 27, 1995 and a tentative agenda was distributed
at the Board meeting along with the flyer that is being distributed to the public.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, extension 252
NEW BUSINESS
5. TOUR OF CONSERVATION AREAS
Staff will be arranging a tour towards the end of July of the various highlights of the Authority's
facilities and properties and will extend an invitation to all Authority members and their guests.
E49 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #3/95, JUNE 16, 1995
-
6. ALBION HILLS FIELD CENTRE DAIRY FARM
-Update on Recruitment of a Farm Manager
Staff updated the Board on the process used to recruite a Farm Manager for the Albion Hill Field
Centre Dairy Farm and advised that a recommendation would be brought to Executive Committe
Meeting #5/95, to be held July 14, 1995, for approval.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 11 :20 a.m., June 16, 1995.
Richard Whitehead Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
.
bb.
~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
Vthe metropolitan toronto ancfregion conservation authority
minutes E50
SEPTEMBER 15. 199OCONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT #4/95
ADVISORY BOARD
The Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Humber Room,
5 Shoreham Drive, September 15, 1995. The Chair, Richard Whitehead, called the meeting to
order at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT Chair Richard Whitehead
Members Maria Augimeri
Randy Barber
Michael Di Biase
Donna Patterson
Deborah Sword
Vice Chair of Authority Lois Hancey
ABSENT Members Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Paul Palleschi
MINUTES
Res. #C19/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THAT the minutes of Meeting #3/95 be approved.
CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
E51 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95. SEPTEMBER 15. 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. USE OF PESTICIDES ON AUTHORITY LANDS
KEY ISSUE
Confirmation and clarification of Authority policy with regard to the use of pesticides on Authority
lands.
Res. #C20/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Executive Committee Resolution #166/90.
adopted at Executive Committee meeting #9/90. held August 24. 1990:
"THA T staff continue the practice of selected use of pesticides on Authority lands as part
of operation and maintenance programs"
be reconfirmed;
AND THAT approval for the application of pesticides be at the discretion of field supervisors;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report annually to the Authority as to the quantities and
locations of pesticide application on Authority lands and the rationale behind such application.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Res. #C21/95 Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THA T the Authority encourage the use of alternatives to chemical pesticides. and apply the
principles of integrated pest management on its lands.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION. AS AMENDED. WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1990, the issue of use of pesticides on Authority property came before the MTRCA Executive
Committee. This was in response to concerns raised by a member of the public. At that time, the
Executive confirmed that the use of pesticides would continue to be permitted on a selected basis.
Subsequent to this, Management Committee considered the issue on several occasions to provide
clarification as to circumstances where the use of pesticides would be permitted, and to specify an
approval process and levels of accountability for this use. Current practice is that pesticides may
not be applied for cosmetic purposes or to reduce trimming, and that approval of the Director of
Facilities and Operations is required to carry out pesticide application.
CONSERV A nON AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 E52
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. USE OF PESTICIDES ON AUTHORITY LANDS (CONTD.)
RATIONALE
The Authority, like many agencies, has continuously reduced the use of pesticides and has
employed numerous alternatives in recent years. Staff continues to follow approved procedures for
the application to safeguard; both the public and the environment.
Since the issue of pesticide use was last considered, there have been considerable changes in the
resources available to maintain Authority lands. Staff has also recognized that circumstances vary
considerably across Authority lands and facilities, and that some flexibility in considering these
circumstances is required.
The most significant consequence of the elimination of pesticide application for cosmetic purposes
has been elimination of the use of Roundup (glysophate) on Authority lands. Glysophate is a non-
selective herbicide used to eliminate vegetation along curbs, in parking lots, around trees and
fence posts; which quickly degrades to benign compounds once it comes in contact with the soil.
The primary alternative to the use of Roundup is hand pulling and the use of string trimmers.
The Authority's Operations Budget has undergone significant reductions over the past three years.
These reductions have translated into less staff, particularly seasonal employees, which has
reduced the Authority's ability to trim and hand-pull weeds. While in many instances, Authority
properties have been allowed to return to a more natural state, there are some locations where a
higher level of maintenance is required. These include entrance ways and parking lots for active
use conservation areas and sites that are more formally landscaped such as tree donation sites. In
particular, staff has received numerous complaints with regard to weeds and unwanted growth
related to the memorial plantings at Foster Woods. Restrictions on the use of modern, non-toxic
products to deal with these situations impact on the longevity of facilities such as parking surfaces
and the survival of newly planted trees and shrubs.
Operations at the Authority's tree nursery present special requirements with regard to the use of
pesticides associated with tree propagation. While these requirements are not cosmetic in nature,
they are ongoing. This means that the current practice of obtaining approval at the Director level
for each application is cumbersome and inefficient. Similarly, the Authority's food service
operations need to spray on a regular basis for insect and rodent control in order to meet health
regulations. This work is generally done by contractors and has, in practice, been outside the
regular approval process.
The Authority has never carried out widespread applications of pesticides on its lands. At the same
time, staff feels that pesticides represent a cost-effective tool that can assist the Authority in
carrying out its work. If the use of pesticides use is monitored and carried out by qualified staff,
and if the locations for use are selected based on real need, it is felt that both the objectives of the
Authority and those of the public are served. It is suggested that the best way to do this is to
have day-to-day discretion placed in the hands of field supervisors while providing an annual audit
of the program to the Authority, so as to ensure overall accountability. This approach is similar to
that used by the Metro Parks and Culture and the City of Toronto Parks and Recreation
Departments.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, extension 252
E53 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. 1996 PROPOSED PUBLIC FACILITY FEE SCHEDULE
KEY ISSUE
Establishment of the 1996 fee schedule for public use of Authority facilities and programs.
Res. #C22/95 Moved by: Donna Patterson
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1996 Fee Schedule; dated
September 5, 1995, (Appendix CR #1/95), for admission to, and use of, the Authority's facilities
and programs, to be effective January, 1996; be approved.
AMENDMENT #1 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THA T Sections 1.4, 2.4, 3.4 of the 1996 Proposed Public Facility Fee Schedule (Appendix CR
#1/951. be amended to exempt senior citizens, age 65 and over, from admission fee charges to
conservation areas. during weekdays only.
AMENDMENT #2 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THA T Section 4 of the 1996 Proposed Public Facility Fee Schedule (Appendix CR #1/951. be
omitted;
AND FURTHER THAT Petticoat Creek conservation area be included in Sections 1 and 2, of the
proposed fee schedule. thus including Petticoat Creek in per person, per day, general admission fee
charges; omitting parking charges at this facility.
AMENDMENT #3 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT Section 5.5 of the 1996 Proposed Public Facility Fee Schedule (Appendix CR #1/951.
proposing an increase of $1.00 for a senior annual admission fee pass at any conservation area,
from $12.00 to $ 1 3.00 per annum, maintain the 1995 fee, reflecting a zero increase in a senior
annual admission fee pass.
AMENDMENT #1 WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. NOT CARRIED
AMENDMENT #2 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. NOT CARRIED
AMENDMENT #3 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. NOT CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION. WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 E54
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. 1996 PROPOSED PUBLIC FACILITY FEE SCHEDULE (CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
Section #29 (1 )(c), of the Conservation Authority's Act, permits the Authority to establish fees for
the use of its lands, facilities and services. The revenues derived from public use facilities form a
significant part of the Authority's operating budget. In 1995, user fees for the Kortright Centre for
Conservation, Black Creek Pioneer Village and the Conservation Areas, were budgeted at
$3.401,800. This represents approximately 43% of the operating budget for these facilities. It is
anticipated that a similar ratio of user fee revenues to operating costs will be included in the 1996
Operating Budget.
Given the high degree of dependence on user fees in order to operate the Authority's public use
facilities, it is critical that fees be set at appropriate levels and that revenue targets be met.
Recent reductions in funding levels have meant that increased revenues from user fees have
become more important in allowing the Authority to maintain or improve service levels at its public
use facilities. In addition, land acquisitions over the past three years and increasing urban
development around Authority properties have meant additional pressure on the Authority to
preserve or improve maintenance levels on lands which are not developed for recreational use.
These factors, along with possible further funding reductions in 1996, mean that revenues derived
from user fees will be especially important in supporting Authority operations in the coming year.
The 1996 Operating Budget which will be submitted to the Finance and Administration Advisory
Board on September 29, 1995, will include revenue estimates based on the fee adjustments
proposed in this report.
RATIONALE
The most significant fee change proposed for 1996 involves increased admission fees on weekends
and holidays at selected conservation areas, these being Boyd, Bruce's Mill and Heart lake
(Sections 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0l. This recognizes that some Areas are more attractive than others
because of the facilities available there or it's geographical location, and that, on weekends, these
sites are currently at capacity. Admission fees have not been changed at those conservation areas,
which are currently operating at less than capacity. It is estimated that this change will produce a
net increase in revenue of approximately $40,000.
E55 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15,1995
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. 1996 PROPOSED PUBLIC FACILITY FEE SCHEDULE (CONTD.)
The proposed 1996 Fee Schedule, Section 4.0, makes provision for admission fees at Petticoat
Creek to be changed to a parking charge. This proposal is in response to long standing conflicts
with local residents regarding the charging of admission for individuals walking into the Area.
Petticoat Creek is surrounded by residential development and neighbours have come to regard the
Conservation Area as a local use park. When per person admission fees were introduced in 1991,
there were a number of confrontations with residents and the issue received extensive press
coverage. Similar concerns have been raised at other locations, but not to the same degree. Since
the amount of revenue involved was not significant there was some Question as to whether forcing
the issue was worth the negative public relations. At the end of the 1991 season, a practice was
established whereby staff would encourage local residents to buy combined pool/admission passes,
but would not charge visitors walking into the Area. A change to a parking fee formalizes this
practice. It is anticipated that this change will not adversely effect overall revenue levels at
Petticoat Creek.
In comparison with commercial fishing operations, the angling fee at Glen Haffy (Section 6.0) is
currently under-priced. This is particularly true in the case of pass holders who can take away two
trout per day throughout the fishing season for a very small investment. In order to correct this
situation, while recognizing that many visitors view Glen Haffy as an ideal place to introduce their
children to fishing, an increase in the angling fee at Glen Haffy is proposed. Individuals fourteen
years of age and under would still not pay an angling fee.
Some other minor increases in conservation area fees are proposed to help offset program costs or
where staff feels that demand will accommodate a fee adjustment. These include increases in
charges for group camping (Section 11.01. serviced campsites (Section 14.0) and row boat rentals
(Section 9.0).
Black Creek Pioneer Village is proposing an increase to the fees charged for the Dickson's Hill
School program (Section 25.10). This fee has not been changed since 1992. Given the popularity
of this program as evidenced by a constant waiting list and in order to bring the program to the
same level as the general tour program, staff feels a fee increase is warranted.
An increase of $0.25 to the adult admission fee at the Kortright Centre for Conservation is
proposed in Section 32.1. This fee was last adjusted in 1993 and staff feels that current demand
would accommodate an increase in the adult fee. The child fee is proposed to remain unchanged.
It is estimated that this increase will provide an additional $6,000, in revenue.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, extension 252
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95. SEPTEMBER 15. 1995 E56
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. 1996 FEE SCHEDULE
- Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Fee
KEY ISSUE
The introduction of a parking fee at Black Creek Pioneer Village to increase revenues.
Res. #C23/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a parking fee be introduced for Black
Creek Pioneer Village.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
.
The impact of reduced provincial funding and municipal levy require The Metropolitan Toronto
Region Conservation Authority facilities to demonstrate greater self-sufficiency through increased
earned revenues. Given this extreme pressure to increase 1996 revenues, the introduction of a
parking fee at Black Creek Pioneer Village is recommended.
Across Metropolitan Toronto, automobile users have generally accepted pay parking as the
normality, not the exception, and car owners routinely factor parking fees into excursion costs
whether it be in the congested downtown Toronto core or further out, such as the Metro Zoo or
Canada's Wonderland.
New developments at York University have also stimulated Black Creek Pioneer Village, to be
proactive about initiating pay parking fees, for 1996. Construction of a five-arena sports complex
opposite the BCPV parking lot is slated for the Fall of 1995 and is expected to open next summer.
The traffic study undertaken for this project reveals that some surplus parking at BCPV may be
needed at certain peak times during the winter and summer months. In addition, Seneca Campus
will be built by 1997 at York on what is currently a parking lot on the west side of the campus.
The increasing need by York for additional parking from such projects creates broader opportunity
for BCPV. Instead of ticketing York students who park in our lot, we can in future offer them
convenient pay parking. York's peak parking times occur mainly when BCPV's lot is at low use
levels (Monday to Friday, September to April) and can easily accommodate usage without
inconveniencing BCPV visitors.
Since opening in 1960 BCPV has offered free parking, however the issue of pay parking has been
investigated with some regularity in the annual fee schedule review. In the 1980's because of the
Commercial Concentration Tax, pay parking was not viable. About the time this tax was
rescinded, the new GST was applied to admission rates, which forced increases to admissions.
Free parking has been recognized and highly valued at BCPV. The combination of reasonable
admissions rates and the added value of free parking has made BCPV appear especially affordable.
However, the current financial climate makes it imperative to explore and initiate net revenue
producers wherever feasible, and pay parking is the most viable source at this time.
E57 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
. - -
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. 1996 FEE SCHEDULE (CONTD.)
- Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Fee
RATIONALE
Ninety-five percent of the general attendance population arrives by car, amounting to approximately
24,000 cars per operating season May through December. The average party size arriving by car
is four persons. The parking lot has a capacity of approximately 600 spaces, but could
accommodate more if it were properly lined.
A review of other Toronto area attractions reveals that pay parking is a fact of life and the average
price is $ 5.00 per car. Attractions that charge for parking include; the Metro Zoo, Casa Loma, the
Ontario Science Centre, Ontario Place, Wild Water Kingdom, and Canada's Wonderland.
McMichael Canadian Art Collection is currently conducting a cost/benefit analysis for pay parking,
commencing in 1996.
Attractions that do not manage parking facilities include Art Gallery of Ontario, Royal Ontario
Museum, the Hockey Hall of Fame and the CN Tower. Visitors to these attractions must pay for
parking in private or municipal lots. York University's parking service staff have been consulted.
York's current policy is to charge all types of users and offer a variety of options with monthly
passes and premium prices for select lots. The daily rate for casual visitors is $5.00.
In reviewing revenue potential, staff analyzed both an increase to admission fees and the
introduction of parking fees. The impact of initiating both of these actions in one year would likely
trigger a serious decline in attendance, because of the sharp increase delivered at once to a price
sensitive audience. Increasing admission fees to a level which would generate the same net
revenue as a parking fee would result in an board increase of 50 cents to adult fees, 25 cents to
child fees and $1.00 to student fees. This approach creates a marketing difficulty for the Village,
since a comparison by consumers of the relative value of the Village, versus other competing
attractions is made difficult by the hidden cost of parking in the others' fee structure. To remain
competitive, we must adopt the same pricing strategy as other attractions or, alternately, advertise
extensively to ensure the consumer is able to make an informed comparison. The latter would
require additional operating expenses, largely negating the revenue increases.
Modifications to the BCPV lot are required to improve service and safety of users in 1996.
Additional lighting, barriers to facilitate entrance and exit areas, a parking booth, hydro and phones,
automatic exit gates and lines to mark spaces are minimum improvements required. Resurfacing
or major lot development has not been included in this proposal.
The lot would be operated from May to December, 9:30 - 4:30 daily, and by special arrangement
for York University events as needed. Parking fees would apply to visitors with the exception of
school buses, village citizens, wedding and special functions guests or people attending meetings in
the visitors centre.
CONSERV A nON AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95. SEPTEMBER 15. 1995 E58
~
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. 1996 FEE SCHEDULE (CONTD.)
- Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Fee
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
To meet revenue targets, BCPV staff recommend a parking fee of $4.00 (including $.52 GST and
PST) be introduced. Considering this is a new charge visitors will face and only nominal capital
improvements are being made to the parking lot, the $4.00 pricing is positioned at a level below
competing sites but is sufficient to generate revenues which will be required to manage impending
MTRCA funding reductions.
It is not BCPV's intent to undercut York parking, however it is felt that $5.00 is too steep a price
to introduce to BCPV customers simply to be on par with York. Negotiations will be undertaken
with York to create special monthly rates for York students and special rates for their overflow
events.
Revenues of $83,000 are projected from pay parking for 1996. This figure, derived as follows
from 1994 general attendance levels, is as follows:
Average number of cars per day X number of open days X fee =
100 X 240 X $3.48 = $83,520
Capital improvements will cost $24,500 and will be funded from parking revenues.
The cost of operating parking from May to December is $24,800.
Cost Summary:
Year 1
Revenue ($3.48 x 24,000 cars) $83,000
Capital Improvements $24,500
Operating Expenses 24.800
Total 49,300
Net Revenue $33,700
Year 2
Revenue $83,000
Operating Expenses 25,000
Net Revenue $58,000
Report prepared by: Marty Brent, extension 403
E59 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. COMMUNITY PARKS WEEK
KEY ISSUE
Proclamation of Community Parks Week.
Res. #C24/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Donna Patterson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the week of October 1 to 7. 1995, be
celebrated in the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's watersheds as
"Community Parks Week";
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority support Community Parks Week through, Hike-a-Thon '95,
which is planned for Bruce's Mill Conservation Area on Sunday, October 1, 1995.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Community Parks Week is an annual autumn initiative that encourages individuals and communities
to protect and restore the natural environment through participation in a variety of outdoor
activities and experiences. The project involves a variety of organizations including the Ontario
Parks Association, Hike Ontario, Participation Ontario, the Ontario Fitness Council, the Ontario
Recreation Facilities and Municipal Recreation Associations and the Association of Conservation
Authorities of Ontario. Funding support is provided by the federal Active Living and the
Environment Program. Community Parks Week Participants in 1 994 included the Cities of London,
Kitchener, Mississauga, Brampton, Elliot Lake and Saint Thomas, and the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority.
The Authority Staff Donations Committee, along with conservation areas section staff and The
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, are organizing a Hike-a-Thon at Bruce's Mill on
October 1, 1995. This event is being held in conjunction with Ontario Hiking Day in order to
promote hiking at the conservation areas and raise funds for the Conservation Foundation In
addition to being Ontario Hiking Day, this date corresponds to the opening of Community Parks
Week. With this in mind, a wide range of outdoor activities will be available for all family members
to enjoy.
RATIONALE
The Hike-a-Thon's twin themes of outdoor activity and support of the natural environment are
coincident with the objectives of Community Parks Week. Participation in the Community Parks
Week allows the Authority to join in a province-wide initiative, taking advantage of the
partnerships, resources and promotional assistance offered by the program.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, extension 252
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 E60
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. REVISION OF THE 1995 FIELD OPERATIONS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
KEY ISSUE
The list of Field Operations Planning and Development budget items has been revised based on the
need to give higher priority to revenue generating projects.
Res. #C25/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Michael Oi Biase
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report dated September 14,
1995, on revisions to the 1995 Field Operations Planning and Development Budget, be received for
information.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #8/94, the following resolution was approved:
" THA T the Field Operations Division Planning and Development budget items contained in
the 1995 Preliminary Estimates be considered for implementation subject to the availability
of funding in the final 1995 Authority Budget. "
The accompanying staff report outlined a list of projects which had been prioritized by the
Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board. Within the approved budget, staff
has reallocated funds to projects which for various reasons are seen as having immediate priority.
Funds originally allocated for drive sheds at Bruce's Mill and Glen Haffy have been eliminated, and
the budget available for the development of concept plans at Boyd/Kortright and Albion Hills has
been scaled back. These projects have been replaced by the development of a retail store at
Indian Line Campground and provision of an improved store facility at the Albion Hills
Campground. Staff would also like to continue work related to the installation of additional
serviced sites at Albion Hills.
A total of $20,000 has been allocated to the development of a store at Indian Line. At Albion Hills,
$30,000 is required for improvements to the existing store, and preliminary work for serviced site
development.
ES1 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
-
SECTION I . ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. REVISION OF THE 1995 FIELD OPERATIONS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
(CONTD.)
RATIONALE
During 1995, staff reviewed Authority direction in terms of capital development and, based on
anticipated reduction of traditional sources of funding, it was determined that priority needed to be
given to projects which could provide proven and immediate revenue generation. Previous
development of additional serviced sites and a campground store at the Albion Hill Campground has
improved revenues 330% since 1992. During the 1995 operating season the store at Albion Hills
showed a profit of approximately $10,000. The level of sales experienced this year necessitates
greater space both for retail display and the storage of stock. Staff feels that the demand for
serviced sites at Albion Hills is still not being met and that a store at Indian Line would meet with a
similar level of success as that experienced at Albion Hills.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, extension 252
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
6. SIGNAGE UNDER TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT
KEY ISSUE
Adoption of a more user-friendly signage standard for Authority property boundaries.
Res. #C26/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the signage concept presented be adopted and implemented.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The issue of how best to provide adequate notice of prohibited activities on Authority lands so as
to be able to secure convictions on tickets issued under the Trespass to Property Act, has been
around for some time. The present standard involves somewhat harshly worded signs that do
little for enhancing our public image. The Chairman requested that this matter be reviewed again
and the following summarizes the results of my investigations into the matter.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95. SEPTEMBER 15.1995 E62
-
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
6. SIGNAGE UNDER TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT (CONTD.)
The use of the yellow dot which. under the Act, means that certain activities are prohibited and
make it the responsibility of the person entering the property to find out what they are. has been
strongly discouraged by senior court officials in Peel and York. We have been advised that, even
though the Act is Quite clear on the point. they will not convict if the only notice that has been
provided is a yellow dot. It is true, that few. if any. members of the general public know what a
yellow dot means.
To address this concern, the present signage standard was adopted which incorporates a red circle
with a slash and the words 'No Trespassing'. Over time the negative image of these signs has
been marginally softened by adding an invitation to call our office for a list of permitted activities
and the use of additional permissive signage (i.e. an activity graphic in a green circle). The overall
result is a not very inviting image at the entrances to some public lands. In addition, an
opportunity to make people aware of the Authority and its significant work in protecting green
spaces has been lost by the negative approach.
The Act states, that if a landowner provides notice that certain activities are allowed, all other
activities are prohibited and if notice is given that a specific activity is prohibited, all
other activities not prohibited are allowed. Using the first provision, we could sign the vast
majority of our properties with permitted activities specific to the site (i.e. hiking, skiing, cycling.
etc.). These signs could be designed to include the Authority's logo, slogan and phone number in
a much more positive and attractive way. A mock-up of the proposed concept is attached. In
some locations it may be necessary to incorporate the red dot with permitted activity graphics, but
this could be accomplished on one sign where we currently use two separate signs.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Site specific signs will have to be produced based on the activities permitted on each property.
Computer generated signs laminated in plastic like the ones used at the Kortright Centre will be
investigated as a cost effective alternative to externally produced ones.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Implementing a new sign design will be phased in over time as old signs are replaced. The cost of
this will be incorporated into various individual budgets.
Report Prepared by: Ken Owen, Extension 255
E63 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
-
. SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
- ---
metro . conservation
region
(416) 661-6600
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
~~. ~ _. ~ w-...- - --..--_,....~~. -- .. --.... _') _ ..,=--._..____...~. T._ _.--...:- ~.......... . ....~ .- ~ ....____._ -
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, SEPTEMBER 15,1995 E64
~
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 11 :30 a.m., September 15, 1995.
Richard Whitehead Craig Mather
Chair Secretary-Treasurer
pI.
~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
Vthe metropolitan toronto andregion conservation authority
minutes E65
NOVEMBER 17. 1995 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT #5/95
ADVISORY BOARD
The Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village on November 17, 1995. The Chair, Richard Whitehead, called the meeting to
order at 10: 1 0 a.m.
PRESENT Chair Richard Whitehead
Members Maria Augimeri
Randy Barber
Michael Di Biase
Donna Patterson
Deborah Sword
Vice Chair of Authority Lois Hancey
ABSENT Members Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Paul Palleschi
MINUTES
Res. #C27/95 Moved by: Donna Patterson
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THA T the minutes of Meeting #4/95 be approved.
CARRIED
E66 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA
-Campground Expansion
KEY ISSUE
Approval to reallocate approved 1995 Conservation Area Capital Development funds for the
development of a new campground at Albion Hills Conservation Area.
Res. #C28/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT funds in the amount of $80,000, originally
designated as part of the allocation for paving of the main road at Albion Hills Conservation Area.
be reallocated to support the development of a new campground in the Albion Hills Conservation
Area in the Humberview picnic area;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with this project in 1995.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The preliminary 1 996 Capital Development Program for Conservation Areas identifies the
development of a new campground at Albion Hills Conservation Area, in the amount of $80,000, as
a revenue generation project. As part of the investigation of the feasibility of this project,
Conservation Area staff met with staff from the Watershed Management Division to review the
proposal with respect to the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. After also meeting
with staff from the Region of Peel Health Unit, Conservation Area staff have initiated archaeological
site investigations. As a result of these investigations, staff has identified that this project can
proceed, having satisfied all criteria.
Staff has a window of opportunity to proceed with this project in 1995 with an immediate return of
revenue for the 1996 camping season, subject to approval, to proceed in November.
CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 995 E67
--
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA (CONTD.)
-Campground Expansion
RA TIONALE
Based on anticipated reduction of funding for 1996, staff has reviewed the list of approved 1995
and preliminary 1996 Capital Development projects, on the basis of contribution to immediate
revenue generation objectives. As outlined in a report, by the Manager, Conservation Areas, to the
Board at Meeting #4/95, held on September 15, 1995:
"previous development of additional serviced sites and a campground store at the Albion
Hills Campground has improved revenues 330% since 1992. Staff feels that the demand
for serviced sites at Albion Hills is still not being met. "
Discussions were held with seasonal campers prior to the end of the camping season and
approximately 25 families expressed interest in the new campground proposal for the 1996 season.
The development of a 42 site seasonal campground will significantly add to the camping experience
and revenue at Albion Hills, while freeing up sites in the existing campground for weekend and
vacationing families that cannot presently be accommodated. Additional revenues are projected at
$30,000 for the 1996 camping season at Albion Hills.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The design of the campground road and campsites has been completed. Upon approval of the
project, staff will proceed to construct an access road, install hydro and water connections, initiate
landscaping and buffer plantings, and install showers in the on-site washroom building. Signage
and necessary control gates will be prepared during the winter for installation in the spring.
Additional landscaping will also be carried out in the spring.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds allocated in Account number 408-57 for paving at Albion Hills, in the amount of $80,000,
are presently available to allocate to this project.
Report prepared by: AI Leach, ext. 251
E68 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE
-Sponsorship Development
KEY ISSUE
To meet Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) levy reduction target of $600,000 by 1998, and that
BCPV undertake a sponsorship development project.
Res. #C29/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to develop Terms of
Reference and issue a request for proposals in regards to a sponsorship development program to
support Black Creek Pioneer Village operations;
AND FURTHER THAT this program be coordinated with ongoing initiatives of The Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Black Creek Pioneer Village has a levy reduction target of $350,000 for 1997 and a further target of
$250,000 by 1998, bringing the annual target to $600,000 in two years. This represents 15% of
the budget.
Options for BCPV to achieve this immediate levy reduction target range from complete closure to
constrained operation, to revenue generating opportunities. Given BCPV's revenue generating
potential and the 12 month time frame in which to plan and manage this levy reduction, opportunity
exists to develop and launch substantial sponsorship activity for 1997.
Black Creek Pioneer Village has constrained considerably, with successful results, but recognizes
there are potentially lucrative revenue opportunities that should be explored and pursued. Through
1994 and 1995, BCPV has restructured, constrained operations, introduced full time staff lay-offs,
shortened its season, and concentrated on rebuilding public awareness, improving service, and
increasing revenues and attendance. Black Creek Pioneer Village has reduced annual expenditures
by $200,000 (5%) since 1993, and shrunk its operating season, losing lucrative March Break and
Easter attendance, but has managed to maintain earned revenue levels at $2,100,000, or about
$40,000 less than in 1993. There are strong indicators of BCPV's potential revenue generating
capacity through new initiatives such as sponsorship.
Sponsorship rights offer significant financial opportunity for BCPV. This area is virtually untapped.
Black Creek Pioneer Village has a unique marketing position (family oriented, wholesomeness) that
is attractive to specific industry sectors, and given the right circumstances (business volume,
themed special events, etc.) there are partnership opportunities that will benefit BCPV financially
and partner corporations in various ways.
CONSERVATION AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 EG9
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE
-Sponsorship Development
The Authority does not have the in-house expertise to step into in this highly developed and
competitive area of corporate sponsorship. With the cultural sector as a whole, facing reduced
public sector support, successful sponsorship negotiations will become even more challenging. It
requires an investment of time and expertise, generally 12 to 15 months lead time, to launch, pitch,
and conclude negotiations for major sponsorships.
It is recommended that services of a high powered specialist be contracted to package and present
sponsorship programs to prospective corporations. This is considered the most cost effective
approach because it builds on specialized expertise, a successful track record, corporate
connections, and sales savvy that MTRCA cannot match.
Black Creek Pioneer Village has drafted project terms of reference, in accordance with MTRCA
purchasing policy, outlining sponsorship program objectives.
WORK TO BE DONE
The process to implement a sponsorship program will include:
. establishment of a selection committee and selection through a competitive process
. sponsorship package development, including the creation of opportunities and benefits,
identification of industry sectors and interested corporate partners, brokering negotiations
and agreements.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Detailed costs for this project will need to be investigated in the selection process. Preliminary
investigations suggests sponsorship brokers' contractual services are charged at a percent of gross
sponsorship revenue generated, including a non refundable retainer fee. Under such an
arrangement, the project becomes self-funding. In a worse case scenario, should the sponsorship
development fail to achieve any financial results, BCPV would have a financial liability of the
retainer fee.
Report prepared by: Marty Brent, ext. 403
E70 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95. November 17, 1995
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. 1996 INTERIM CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
KEY ISSUE
Approval of the 1996 Interim Conservation Area Development Project.
Res. #C30/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1996 Interim Conservation Area
Development Project be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken:
la) The benefitting municipalities be requested to approve the project and capital
expenditures set forth herein;
lb) The Minister of Natural Resources be requested to provide technical approval of the
project as required under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act;
lc) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario
Municipal Board be requested;
ld) The appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required
in connection with the project, including the execution of any documents.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Res. #C31/95 Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THAT the Conservation Area development activities proprosed in the 1996 Interim Conservation
Area Development Project be approved with the exception of the proposed roadside parking lot to
be constructed at Boyd Conservation Area;
AND FURTHER THAT the proposal for a roadside parking lot at Boyd Conservation Area, be referred
back to staff for further review.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS ................................ CARRIED
CONSERVATION AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17. 995 E71
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. 1996 INTERIM CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ICONTD.)
BACKGROUND
The Authority has a firmly established mandate to provide recreational opportunities on land it owns
and manages. For example, Section 211m) [R.S.O. 1987] of the Conservation Authorities Act,
gives The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority IM.T.R.C.A.) the power to use
its'land for parks or other recreational purposes. This mandate was reinforced in 1989 when the
M.T.R.C.A. adopted its Mission Statement which advocates the implementation of watershed
management programs that enhance the quality and variety of life in its communities by using its
lands for inter-regional outdoor recreation.
Over the past five years, the Authority's efforts to fulfill its public use mandate has been guided by
the Conservation Area Develooment Proiect 1991-1995 as approved by the Conservation and
Related Land Management Advisory Board on April 12, 1991.
In the absence of a multi-year project, Authority staff has developed the 1996 Interim Conservation
Area Develooment Proiect to direct capital expenditures over the next year. The improvements and
additions that this one year project supports are aimed at assuring customer safety, enhancing
customer service, and generating higher revenues within specific areas. Implementation of this
project will be subject to The Strateav for Public Use of Conservation Authoritv Lands (1995) to
ensure the proposed uses, facilities and landscape changes are thoroughly examined and designed
to prevent adverse impacts.
A new five year project will be prepared to guide future public use and facility development on
Authority land. It will also be helpful in getting Conservation Area Development activities in the
municipal budget forecasts in the future.
Conservation Area development activities for 1996 are summarized below:
A. Customer Safety Issues
1 . Main Entrance Widening/Sidewalk - Petticoat Creek
2. Fire Hydrant Addition - Indian Line
3. Roadside Parking - Boyd
4. Road Improvements - All Areas
B. Customer Service Improvements
1 . 200 Picnic Tables - All Areas
2. 2 Picnic Shelters - Boyd, Petticoat Creek
3. 12 Washroom Units - Albion Hills, Heart Lake, Bruce's Mill, Boyd, Greenwood, Glen Hatty
4. Playgrounds - Petticoat Creek
C. Revenue Generation
1 . Campground Expansion - Albion Hills
2. Campground Development - Greenwood
3. Water Play Facilities - Petticoat Creek
4. Hatchery Expansion - Glen Hafty
5. Children's Wading Pool -Boyd, Greenwood
E72 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. 1996 INTERIM CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ICONTD.)
RATIONALE
Facilities and uses at conservation areas, require improvements and additions periodically to ensure
customer satisfaction and provide safe, positive and enjoyable experiences for those who attend.
Generally, customer satisfaction is high already, but visitor surveys have shown that minor additions
in the number of washrooms, picnic tables and shelters would improve the overall enjoyment of
users. Likewise, Authority staff and customers alike have recognized the need to improve road and
entrance conditions at several of the conservation areas to ensure safe public access and alleviate
conflicts with other traffic. Perhaps one of the greatest safety concerns is the need to add a new
fire hydrant to the Indian Line Campground to meet local fire code standards.
The addition of facilities at selected conservation areas aim to increase revenue thus reducing the
Authority's dependency on external funding sources. Campgrounds are the Authority's largest
revenue producers. Therefore, the provision of public camping facilities at Greenwood is an
important capital project in 1996. Implementation will be based on a favourable business plan.
In the past, natural swimming areas were important activities at conservation areas. Over the
years, as water quality issues demanded the closure of many natural swimming areas, attendance
declined and revenues suffered accordingly. More recently, attendance at conservation areas with
artificial swimming facilities is, on average, over two times that of Areas without swimming
facilities. By developing wading facilities at Boyd and Greenwood, staff anticipate an increase in
attendance and greater revenues without incurring the substantially higher cost of constructing and
operating traditional larger pools. Water play facilities at Petticoat Creek will also translate into
happier customers, more visits and greater revenue.
One of the Authority's great assets are the stocked trout ponds that attract many anglers. By
expanding the capacity of the trout hatchery at Glen Hatty, staff hope to increase stocking at each
area where fishing is an offered. Increasing angling success will result in more visitors and greater
revenue.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Upon approval by the Authority, the project will be forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources
and the affected municipalities for approval. Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities
Act, approval of the Ontario Municipal Board will be requested.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 995 E73
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. 1996 INTERIM CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CONTD.1
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The 1996 Interim Conservation Area Development Project proposes a total expenditure of
$500,000. As detailed in the 1996 Preliminary Estimates for Facilities and Operations, under the
Planning and Development Program, the funding for this project is outlined below:
Summary of funding for the 1996 Interim Conservation Area Development Project
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTED' DOLLARS CONTRIBUTED
Adjala- T osorontio 0.00483 16.00
Durham 3.19964 7999.00
Metropolitan Toronto 60.69308 151,731.00
Mono 0.00657 14.00
Peel 16.29814 40,745.00
York 19.79774 49,495.00
Sub-Total 100.0000 250,000.00
Other IProvincial, etc.) 250,000.00
Total $500,000.00
Funding will be allocated approximately as follows:
Customer Safety $127,500
Customer Service $210,000
Revenue $162,500
Total $500,000
For information contact: Gary Wilkins lext. 211)
Percentage of Municipal Levies based on recreational funding formula.
E74 CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
1996 INTERIM CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
.
.>.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 E75
-
1996 INTERIM CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
.
MANDATE
Under Section 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act [R.S.O. 1987], for the proposes of
accomplishing its objectives, a Conservation Authority has power,
. to use lands that are owned or controlled by the Authority for such purposes, not
inconsistent with its objectives, as it considers proper;
. to use lands that are owned or controlled by the Authority for park or other
recreational purposes, and to erect, or permit to be erected, buildings, booths and
facilities for such purposes and to make charges for admission thereto and use there
of; and
.
. to collaborate and enter into agreements with ministries and agencies of
government, municipal councils and local boards and other organizations'.
BACKGROUND
Since the inception of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(MTRCA) in 1956, the properties owned by the Authority have been managed, in part, for
the pursuit of recreational activities. In fact, when the Etobicoke-Mimico, Humber Valley,
Don River and Rouge-Duffins-Highland-Petticoat Authorities amalgamated to form the
MTRCA, each recommended that recreation areas be developed and plans for land
acquisition be initiated. Partnerships with the province and regional municipalities were
also established at that time, and these partnerships are still in place today.
Land acquisition considered both the development of active recreation areas, as well as the
conservation of lands for more passive recreational pursuits. Higher intensity activities
including outdoor swimming, picnicking and camping are advocated within the
Conservation Areas. More passive uses such as hiking and wildlife viewing are permitted
in the Forest and Wildlife Areas.
During the 1970's and 1980's there were significant changes to the community in terms of
growth and demographics, resulting in an altered pattern of consumer recreational
interests. To satisfy the local needs, the local municipalities developed recreational
programs. On a regional scale, recreation programs and facilities were offered by the
Authority, but during this time, the type and quality of services offered within the
Conservation Areas did not appreciably change from those offered in the 1950' and
1960's. The result was a substantial decline in the use of the facilities.
1 Government of Ontario. 1987. p. 11.
1
."
E76 CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
In 1989, faced with increasing net operating costs, decreasing attendance and declining
revenue, the Authority undertook a review of its role in terms of providing outdoor
recreation at a regional scale. It adopted a Mission Statement that states, in part, that:
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, with one-third
of Ontario's population within its area of jurisdiction, [will] act in the
community's interest through advocating and implementing watershed
l)1anagement programs that...enhance the quality and variety of life in the
community by using its lands for inter-regional outdoor recreation, heritage
preservation, and conservation education.
Today, the Authority owns approximately 13,000 hectares of land, retained in their natural
state to a large extent for the purposes of flood control, erosion control, and wildlife and
vegetation management. Some of these lands are also used for regional scale outdoor
recreation and conservation education purposes.
CONSERVATION LAND PLANNING
The eight Conservation Areas (C.A.s) in the MTRCA's jurisdiction include Glen Haffy,
Albion Hills, Heart Lake, Bruce's Mill, Greenwood, Boyd, Clairevillellndian Line) and
Petticoat Creek (Figure 1). Each Area is situated within and adjacent to valley and stream
corridors and natural environments that provide wildlife habitat. Most properties have
flood plain functions and often offer scenic vistas as well. The traditional recreational
opportunities within the C.A.s are hiking and picnicking. In locations where there is
sufficient tableland, more active, outdoor recreation pursuits are offered, such as camping
and swimming.
The requirements for planning facility maintenance, improvements and development for
conservation lands involves approval of concepts plans by the Ministry of Natural
Resources. The Authority has submitted a five year plan entitled: "Conservation Area
Development Project 1991-1995."
In the past five years, there have been a number of changes to Authority management
practices due to fiscal constraints and the growing need for increased recreational
opportunities within the Greater Toronto Area since population growth is expected to
continue into the next century. Now, more than ever, will the recreation facilities offered
by the Authority be required to service the public needs on a regional scale. To plan for
this change, the Authority staff will prepare a five year 9apital development plan for
Authority lands for 1997 to 2001. This plan will not only ensure a balance between
environmental management programs and recreational activities, but will also focus on
programs that are more fiscally advantages and culturally diverse. However, to ensure that
the Conservation Areas continue to evolve and develop through 1996, this one year
interim project has been developed.
In all cases, The Strateqy for Public Use of Conservation Authority Lands (1995) will be
used to ensure that public outdoor recreation uses are thoroughly examined and designed
to' prevent adverse impacts.
-
2
~.
CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 995 E77
.- "
.. -. . .
'. 'f' ". . .--- . --... .,. . ...... .0 ".__. .. 0_..
o'
" ,.'.:' :' .;
. ,:" ~-:.' " I
'.,
.' .' .... .'.~
.-. ...... ,
. . . i
~ :-: ::;~.~;.:'.:.: i ..
:". I 0 I ~ I
....... .......
"-,' . i .
- ~ j! u
. '",. . . f !!:ij
.' . ~r' -
'..e...:....... . -:
......... . .. ...
~ . .' 0 .. .: .
I ': Ii ~.:, CJ
ID S · · .: II LL:
] .. u. . II
.. . I
.~ . -, . - ~ I
." - ~
"',,1
8 .
c
I c
.~ .
~
c 0
ID
I I
,
c
.~
8. ..
e
a;
: E
ID 0
oS .
...
@~ .
i-~
..
!
.
.1
-
w
-. ..
..
.. '. . . - O. E78 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISoiw BOARD -#5/95,-Novemboer .l7~ H~95 . . .
. .
-- '..'
...
- 0
1996 PROJECTS
:
The projects proposed for the 1996 Interim Conservation Area Develooment Proiect are
divided into three themes: Customer Safety Issues, Customer Service Improvements and
Revenue Generation Projects, as summarised below and shown on the attached maps:
Customer Safety Issues
1. Main Entrance Widening/Sidewalk - Petticoat Creek
2. Fire Hydrant Addition - Indian Line
3. Roadside Parking - Boyd
4. Road Improvements - AI/areas
Service Improvements
1 . 200 Picnic Tables - All areas
2. 2 Picnic Shelters - Boyd, Petticoat Creek
3. 12 Washroom Units - Albion Hills, Heart Lake, Bruce's Mill, Boyd, Greenwood, Glen Haffy
4. Playgrounds - Petticoat Creek
Revenue Generation
1 . Campground Development - Greenwood
2. Children's Wading Pool - Greenwood
3. Campground Expansion - Albion Hills
4. Water Play Facilities - Petticoat Creek, Greenwood
5. Hatchery Expansion - Glen Haffy
Development of these proposals will enable the Authority to improve customer service, and
increase existing market opportunities by attracting visitors that were not interested in the
traditional facilities and programs offered at the Conservation Areas. As a result of these
improvements, staff anticipate higher levels of attendance and/or increased revenues for
these Areas in the future.
4
--
.- ., ., . .
. - CONSERV A TION AND RELATED i.'AND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95':No~ember 17, 995 E79
CUSTOMER SAFETY PROJECTS
ALBION HillS
. Completion of the road paving project approved in 1995, Phase 2, is
required.
HEART lAKE
. Asphalt road repairs.
BRUCE'S MILL
. Asphalt road repairs.
GREENWOOD
. Asphalt road repairs.
BOYD
. Asphalt road repairs; develop roadside parking.
PETTICOAT CREEK
. Side-walk widening to improve pedestrian access at the main entrance.
GLEN HAFFY
. Asphalt road repairs.
5
--,
-~- - , -
, - EBO - CONSERVATION-AND RELATED LA-ND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARO'it5t95, November 1'7; 1995
-,-
- "
SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
-- ALBION HillS
. Picnic Tables.
. Two prefab washroom units.
HEART lAKE
. Picnic Tables.
. Two vault washroom units.
BRUCE'S Mill
. Picnic Tables.
. Two prefab washroom units.
GREENWOOD
. Picnic Tables.
. Two prefab washroom units.
BOYD
. Picnic Tables.
. Picnic shelters.
. Two prefab washroom units.
INDIAN LINE
. Picnic Tables.
PETTICOAT CREEK
. Picnic Tables.
. Picnic shelter.
. Playground.
.
GLEN HAFFY
. Picnic Tables.
. Two prefab washroom units.
6
.-.
"
.. .
.. .CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 E81. '.' ...
REVENUE GENERATION PROJECTS
GREENWOOD
Greenwood is located on the northern boundary of Pickering and Ajax, south of the hamlet
of Greenwood. The area is 292 hectares in size, with group camping, day use area and
picnic facilities available. All outdoor recreation uses occupy about 24% of the land base,
with the remainder being tableland forests (25%) and flood plain or steep slopes (51 %).
The Area is dominated by a large, deep river valley. The Duffins Creek passes through the
property, and a large Environmentally Significant Area is situated west of the creek, on the
steep valley slopes. Scenic vistas exist at the top of the valley walls on both sides of the
creek.
Wading Pool and Water Play Facilities Proposal
Swimming was permitted at Greenwood during the 1960's, but due to water quality
problems, this activity no longer occurs. Visitor surveys have consistently shown that
swimming and wading are among the most popular activities where facilities are available.
The number of available activities is an important aspect of Conservation Area operations.
Swimming areas and playgrounds, walking trails, sport facilities such as bocce and
volleyball courts, and other amenities all add value. The development of a wading facility,
combined with water play facilities is proposed.
One expected benefit from a wading pool/water play area is increased week day use, as
. occurs in Heart Lake and Petticoat Creek where swimming or wading opportunities are
available. Figure 2, on the following page, shows a comparison between the number of
weekend and weekday visitors attending areas with and without swimming facilities. As a
general rule, a Conservation Area with a swimming pool will generate greater attendance
both weekdays and weekends. In addition, a swimming facility will help support existing
day and group camp activities at the Greenwood Conservation Area.
According to the background information collected for the Conservation Area Development
Project 1991-1995, a wading pool facility can be offered at Greenwood with no significant
impact on the natural resources.
Campground Development Proposal
Campground development at Greenwood was proposed as a revenue generation concept in
"The Conservation Area Development Plan, 1991-1995." As a result, this proposal has
already undergone some public review. Public concern over the potential impact on the
natural resources resulted in a downsizing of the initial proposal. The proposed number of
campsites is now approximately 200. However, during the 1991 to 1995 period, there was
insufficient funding available for proceeding with the campsite development.
7
E82 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
Thousands of visito,.
... I\.) Co) ~ C7'I m -...I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:~ > en Oi"
a: c:
lCI~ 3 : :::."
;:rc: 6"
= CD ~ 3 '/ i // ill i; II I/i I (;,'! i II i Jill i i; i i /} i I Ii II! I j i ~Q)
~ III ~ ..
CD 0 -< ~ :\ \ \\ \ \ \' \ \ \\\\"I.\\~.\\ \\\\\\\)\\ \' \\\ \'.\\ \" :::.~
CD:: iii cr n 'I! //:! J: Iii i / (I.'!i;'!!!! II i I!:.! J! I I I! i:i f!! (
~CD S- III f40
Q.~ III CD"",
III ~ n CD
<lCI C Q. I!I/;!! ii;! i; I Ii I I / / I} I i II; Ii ;/1 i Iii / Ii/I; // 1;/ j ~s.
ID III Q. 0 ttl
:::~ ID ~ ::CD
CD- III ~ y,\\\\\11 \1\1 \'c-':' '.1 \ \\ \'S\,',\ i ':11\ 1\\1' \1\ li\1
~ 3 > " !i!!! I I I /! I I) I! I I! I( i I III i 1////1 I{! 1I1I I I! III I! ( 0'
ID :::.Q)
e-~ a: a: ~
~ ~ 6" ID I;:} II'};I i;;!Ii i Ii! i /! ),':,'/: i( j (i j; 1/ I; i Ii!) :b.;;:::
nlCl ~ Q.
!.e: ~ 3 :J: ,1111\'.)1'.':'.\\\\\'.\' 1\ \' ,;' ',:.,:\ ,) I I I' II \\ \ ,I, QlQ)
~ CD iii r- ~
iii III 'I! I!!!!! /! II I! II i,' /11 (Ii/!!! I It) I II I/I{! /! I Q)~
CD n 6" Q)~
-;:r (")
!" ID III ~ ::t"oc:::
iil 3 III I Iii! I IiI I!! II if il II III! I II!I I j I / j /////1 (i!
n .. ~ ~~
.. " 0 I\\W'"I\\)',I\"''.\'.\\)','. "'.\",\I\'}"" '\\
CD lCI :J:
"" .. I UI i!! I / il! 11;1 i! j i I 1!i1/.://:'I! (I,!! II! / II 2-Q)
~ 0 ;:r
N c: CD
CD :::'f4
Q. ~ CD
Q. ~ ~!
cr Q.
< 0 ttl Sf
;:r - c..
~ 0 =
;:r "
CD CD s'
"" ~
0 G> CQ
< 5"
CD :J: ~
!: lCI
~ n
III CD ~
::: CD ~
~
CD G> "oc:::
~ W
Q. Ql ~
III -
~ -
n CD
CD CD
iD ~
<
CD
iii Ill> Ill>
III :::< :::<
~ III CD CD CD
Q. ::I"" ~""
c.1D c.1Il
CDlCI IIllCl
::I CD ~CD -=:II
n=: n..
III III III 0
.. lUll
III !!.
~
c. :E:E
CD
'< III III
CD CD
~ ~
c. CD
III ::l
'< Q.
< <
." f V iiiii
- -;::;
,G) ;: ..
..
. .. 83
t\> ill
... ::lCD
s:a
C!""
IDCD
""C9.
gg
-- .-
.0,
- .
CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 995 E83
- -
There are two existing campgrounds in the vicinity of the Greenwood Conservation Area;
Glen Rouge operated by Metro Parks and Darlington, operated by the Province. Both
campgrounds are popular, and even though they are located only 30 minutes apart, a
substantial volume of business is generated at each location. Although these two facilities
are close to Greenwood, a campground in the Greenwood Conservation Area is expected
to be financially viable as well. For example, although Albion Hills is located within five
minutes of a thriving private campground operation it is still operated with financial
success. Regardless, a campground facility at Greenwood will only proceed based on a
favourable business plan. .
Specifically related to Conservation Authorities is the Joint Outdoor Marketing Strategy
currently being developed by the Niagara Region's Conservation Authorities which
recognizes a set of trends with general implications on conservation lands. Overall, the
trends identified in that report include several opportunities for Conservation Authority land
management. One such trend is the development of camping facilities in close proximity to
urban areas that will accommodate the demands of travellers with limited time and money,
including opportunities for nature appreciation, education and adventure.
Recent studies on growing trends in recreation support investment in such development.
Existing campground operations are the Authority's biggest outdoor recreation based
revenue producers.
ALBION HillS
Albion Hills C.A. is located in the Town of Caledon, north of Bolton and south of Palgrave.
The area is 500 hectares in size, and offers facilities that include camping, day use areas,
picnic grounds, swimming, hiking and cross-country ski trails, an education centre and a
demonstration farm. The Area is located on the main branch of the Humber River, on the
Oak Ridges Moraine. There are large river valleys and three Environmentally Significant
Areas situated within Albion Hills.
Campground Expansion
The existing camping facilities have been significantly improved over the past two years,
including the construction of new sites, addition of water and electrical services, and
development of other amenities such as a store, playgrounds and sport facilities. These
improvements have resulted in the generation of substantial new business. As shown on
Figure 3, the number of permits sold in the campground have increased since 1992 and
this increase may be directly related to the campground improvements.
Gross campground revenues have nearly tripled over the past three years, and it is
expected that gross revenues for 1995 will exceed $200,000. There is a demand for more
campsites at Albion Hills, especially during the peak summer period from mid-June to July,
as well as long-weekends. A campground expansion of thirty additional sites is required to
accommodate consumer demand. Not only will the additional sites improve the customer
service capabilities of the campground and facilitate continued operating success, but
additional revenue will be generated to help offset the operating costs of Authority land
and program management.
9
_.
E84 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 199'5
.- '.
"." ", . .
Permit nights
~ N W ~ ~ m ~
o 0 0 0 000
o 0 0 0 000
0000000 0
2.~~;! ~ g' ~ :b~
::s Q. Q. lD CD < lD t;: oS
calDon 01 n- " ....~
~ Q.;'; ; lD! ~ 0'111
crClDlII .. Q. ::l CD =~
c3"~ !!. · - CD ...
.,,1110 . .. .. 0 .........
5"-'3:1 II lD :I ;::!:O'"
lDillDo .. · c ;:::"""
'" :1- lD 0 ;r 14....
'" III ":I cr:::" ~ :::P
III iD ii' lD III lD"lD CD C") CD
":!.",~ :; .. " CD III
~o'n Q. ~.. ~ . ~:;;.
cr:l-III Ill:: N iOIiOI
0"~3 g iD III N "t:i"t:i
:I ;- 2"" 0 .. a ~ N CQ ~
::I:<5!:!!!. ,,~. CD ~ :::!o
=:lD:liD lD Q. .. CD 0 ...~
!i" iDcc !> ~ lD;- N ~ c:: at
Q.1ll.. 0' iD .. -- :::I~
..n;r :I n lD CD Q.._
OllllD '" g, a ~ CD 5
;.3111 .. n!!. CD 0 ...
lD;g~ 0 !!. 0 CD 'i CoO
c~::;. :r :r .... t.) ... ~
CIlgO' lD 0 0 3 iOI
:I :I :I lD 0 :I .. III
~Q.o :I ~ lD ~ iD f'\
!!'..- Q." ~ CD < ~
c'o~ o!" 3 CD !!. ...
:liDlII -;" ~ llI! III
o-(jj < !!!. ...
...-... m ... ~
III~III ~ lD ~ :::P
III :I:IQ. ... 0' CD CD
-. Q. ..... CD
<<g<!!. -..I 0 U1
=... CD I :I
ci' 'Eo ~ en lD
1II111~ lD :I
a< n 'S c
<Ill!!. __ ;r New !7uslne&l!l
.. ..
o CIl III Ol .
-melt .......
c"," CD
3 ~. 01 '0 )>
CIl g ::!.<
OlD
.. ...
..'"
oCC
_olD
3'0
'OCIl
....
03
<-
CIl"
3 ::l
CIlcO ~
::l;r
;; C en
" :I lD
~ :; S-
III < n
:: n-!.
III lD III
o Q...
::l . lD
." it ~~ .. ·
- II U- lD
Q ~ .
~ I g~
",..
IDO
<-
IIIlD
~~
:1:1
.....,
.,
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 E85
BOYD
The Boyd Conservation Areas includes the Kortright Centre for Conservation and is located
three kilometres north of the community of Woodbridge in the City of Vaughan. The area is
noted for large tracts of forested land set in a deep and rugged Humber River valley. A
number of Environmentally Significant Areas have been identified in the southeast, central
and northwest portions of the property. Several large tracts of open field and rented
farmland still exist throughout the site.
The Area is 826 hectares in size, and includes a day use park, picnic grounds, washroom
facilities, residential use facilities, conservation education facilities, a nursery and farmland.
Outdoor recreation and education uses occupy 27 percent of the land, with the remainder
in flood plain (11 %), forests (32%) and open fields (30%),
Wading Pool Proposal
Swimming was permitted at Boyd until 1983, when it was closed because of water quality
problems. The rational for the development of this facility at Boyd is the same as that
outlined above for Greenwood.
PETTICOAT CREEK
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area is located east of the Rouge River mouth, along the
shoreline of Lake Ontario in the Town of Pickering. The Area is 75 hectares in size with a
swimming area, day use park, municipal ball fields, picnic grounds and the Waterfront Trail.
All outdoor recreation uses occupy about 54 percent of the land, with the remainder in
tableland forest (6%) and flood plain or other natural hazard lands (40%).
The Petticoat Creek traverses the property and an Environmentally Significant Area is
located on the steep valley slope. The property fronts onto Lake Ontario, with a 10 to 12
metre high bluff. The bluff offers scenic potential for hikers and picnickers, but bank
erosion restricts public use of the shoreline area.
Water Play Facilities Proposal
A one hectare swimming area exists at Petticoat Creek. For the reasons outlined in the
Greenwood proposal for water play facilities, the addition of waterplay facilities at Petticoat
are proposed.
GLEN HAFFY
.
Glen Haffy Conservation Area is located in the headwaters of the Humber River, in the
Town of Caledon. The Area consists of tableland, forests, Environmentally Significant
Areas, valley lands and wetlands. There are two public fishing ponds, two smaller ponds
for group day use, as well as a day use park.
11
~.
E86 CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
Hatchery Expansion
One of the Authority's greatest assets is the stocked trout ponds at Glen Haffy. To
increase attendance, more fish are required and an expansion of the existing fish hatchery
is necessary. The resulting increased attendance would translate to increased revenues.
ONE YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET
The total budget required for the following interim safety, service and development projects
is $622,500. It is proposed that $250,000 will be obtained through municipal levy, with
the balance being obtained from other sources.
ITEM LOCATION COST
Customer Sefety Issues
Main Entrance Widening/Sidewalk Petticoat Creek C.A. $15,000
Fire Hydrant Addition Indian Line $ 7 . 500
Road Improvements Boyd, Bruce's Mill, Greenwood, Heart $105.000
Roadside Parking (Boyd) Lake. Albion Hills
Service Improvements
200 Picnic Tables All Areas $25.000
2 Picnic Shelters Boyd. Petticoat Creek $35.000
12 Washroom Units Boyd. Bruce's Mill, Greenwood, Glen $135.000
Hafty, Heart Lake, Albion Hills
Playgrounds Indian Line $15.000
Revenue Generation
Campground Development and Graenwood. Albion Hills $180.000
Expansion
Water Play Facilities Petticoat Creek $20.000
Hatchery Expansion Glen Hafty $50.000
Wading Pool Greenwood. Boyd $35,000
TOTAL 622,500
IMPLEMENT A TION
Implementation of these projects will occur once resource and economic impacts are
determined, appropriate business plans are prepared and detailed construction plans are
approved. The guidelines provided in the Strateav for Public Use of Conservation Authority
Lands (1995) will be used. The completion date for the construction of projects outlined in
this report is 1996. A 1997-2001 Conservation Area Development Project will be prepared
during 1996. This project will be helpful in getting the Conservation Area Development
activities in the municipal budget forecasts.
12
,
CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 995 E87
.' ....
,-
I ' '
~I .
i , ,
REG. t.IJN. OF DURHAM
......-~. TOWN OF PICKERING
---
!
~
~3 ,
i
I
--
t
!
!
:
! .-
!
!
i
J.Ul!!L /
0-- I
&--
--
~_ -..r i
=-- !
=--
lit "1__.....
--- i
---
-.--... ..-..
l' ---
. .. .. -
-
--
).._---
--
WATERSHED PLAN PETTICOAT CREEK
WATERSHED RECREATDN PROGRAM CONSERVATON AREA FIG. II
CONCEPT PLAN
E88 CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
..'
.
.," ,
REGIONAl.. Ml.tIICRUTY (7 PEEl..
aTY aF BFWofITON
.. ,
RES. AGR, " " ,
. !
.
~
I
" I
2V_W_~
!I
:'
. ,
( ~I
I
I
;
,
I
,
!
I i
, .-
t- i.
.JoIIiIIlII.. )
I ~ -....
c-_
1 AGR, 'tlCCa_ _
~-- 1
~--..
i--- c:::J -- ,
,
RES ,.... - ... 4. & __.... .. i
3 I ---
~ I
.
. 7'
-
I\..S i
I os i
>......... . ._-..... . - - - -
--
llD._............ ......,
WATERs-ED PLAN HEART LAKE
WATERSHED RECREATION PROGRAM CONSERVATlON AREA FIG. 10
CONCEPT PLAN
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 E89 ' .
-
.' . ' .
:
. -.'
REG. M..NIC. CF CLRHAM
..' . . \:. ....
TONN CF PCKERlNG
, .
i AGR
... ..- ~ ... I
...... -- !
--- --- ,. ... i
-----
..
TOWN OF AJAX
L.!GIND I
~--
~-- :
......-... ___.-.r
e::::::J ..... ...
c::::J - - f
..... - ~ .. ,
--- ~
- -_...~
.
;
AGR
AGR
,
r .-
....
.-'" j
II r
i !
= i
I
.,.
- - - -
--
. ............... - -.......
---,
WATERSHED PLAN GREENWOOD
FOREST a WILOUFE AREA AG.g
W~SHED RECREATION PROGRAM CONCEPT PLAN
E90 CONSERV A TION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
-
, :
. .
..,
Se'R
.'. ..p '" .
RR .,
f
.-':-
RR
":"\ REG. MUNIC. OF PEEL
TOWN OF CALEDON
\ \2_~1lrilI
RR
1
I
f
~
,
.-
[
,
..I.DIS. !
,.., -- :
c--
c:lOD --
~-- !
RR ["-"'-'--
r::<!Zl- -
c=:::J --
/ .111 ..-......._
---
/ Os
'So>!
. - -
. ......--.--..... --
olOo_........--,.
WATERSHED PLAN GLEN HAFFY
FOREST a WlLDLJFE AREA FIG. 8
WATERSHED RECREATION PROGRAM CONCEPT PLAN
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 E91
-
. ..
;
. ....
REG. MUNIC OF PEEL
an CF BRAMPTON
..- , - ,. .
J.G~
---
,
_ c.Aa .-7 ~
smia 11:1 ---
C -_
~--
........ ~ --
~ ...... ~ .-
~_...
c:=l- -
AIUI: ....~--
---
....- ~ -
_._~....~
I
;,. Ih ......... I
~ ! '
~GR
. - - - -
/ -
> .. ........,...... _ 8nd.-gian --
.. -....... 8UlIlari\y ! '-.
WATERSHED PLAN CLAIREV1LLE
~ED REI:REATION PROGRAM CONSERVATION AREA FIG. 7
CONCEPT PLAN
E92 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
-
., ~~
H
il
, , 1
f ~ ~
n
?J
0::0
i "~
~3:
~
I'TI
~ ~ -Ie
nz
ffl ~ :c-
en
,. o I'TI . ::0
::0 no
~ ~ :c"
~ a "
R C/)
~ -Id
; ;:2 11 . g::o
" "
~ ~ i i 8 "
<
r-
I r
I'T1
>
3:
i
01
';i
f
i
C') i
0 J:>IIIlWCI
nztxl
~~:tl
C'):tl C
I'TI~C')
"'tl~1'TI
-4_ en
"'tl~3:
, -
>>'
Z:tl' -,
I'TI
>
"
,
>
: I :D~Q ~~DQ ~
::D
.." i
~ !ilq~'q ~ t
CIl il_~ .It. I
II Hi i it ;
I I li_!1
" .
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 E93 . .
. .
. . . .
.:
... . ....
0 .. ... ... .'
.-
..-
'.'
-'-..,. ,'F ., . '-. .'
~ .'
. .
.' .
,
,
2__
.-
~,..., "
.
-,...
:: ^'
~
V 1Ile ~..... """"'O....:l reg.on
-- 8UIhamy
WATERSHED PLAN BOYD
WATERSHED RECREATDN PROGRAM CONSERVATON AREA 'F1G.5
CONCEPT PlAN
,
E94 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
.'
REG. MLNK:. OF PEEL . .
.!:W.!!2.. . ._,'
TOWN OF CALEDON ~--
CJ --
- ~--
~~--
c::::J - - ..
~---
QZJ --
c:=::J -- -
lit" "...c. ..... ..
---
--- -.'"'~
,.
__,_2
RR rlt
,'.
j
..
.,," RR t
I H
: RR
. "x> 'DO ....
~ - ,-
Vlheln8llOllOiimntoronlDand~
_ _.atluo. IIUIIlorily
WATERSHED PLAN ALBION HILLS
CONSERVATlON AREA FIG. 4
WATERSHED RECREATION PROGRAM CONCEPT PLAN
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 E95
NEW BUSINESS
4. BUSINESS DEVElOPMENT MEMORANDUM
-Introducing Mr. Bob Burchett
Ken Owen, Director of Facilities and Operations, circulated the following memorandum regarding
business development and the newly created role of Corporate Representative - Business
Development. Mr. Owen introduced Mr. Burchett as the new Corporate Representative. Mr.
Burchett was present and spoke briefly to the Board of his vision to increase customer service and
boost revenue for the Authority.
Res. #C32/95 Moved by: lois Hancey
Seconded by: Randy Barber
THA T the memorandum from Ken Owen, dated November 13, 1995, lpages E9G and E97 of these
minutes} regarding business development and staff reorganization be approved and received.
CARRIED
E96 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17, 1995
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALL STAFF
DATE: November 13,1995
FROM: Ken Owen, Director, Facilities and Operations
RE: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Over the past several months as we have wrestled with how to deal with the anticipated cutbacks
in our traditional sources offunding, increased attention to revenue generation has consistently
been suggested as one means of replacing declining grants. In this summer's Creative Thinking
seSSIOns, the idea was formalized as a recommendation that we "create an economic development
unit to jomt venture with a variety of partners to develop revenue generating venturys in keeping
with our mandate."
In studying this idea further, it became clear that a great many people on staff had taken the
revenue challenge on and were trying within the context of their own jobs to come up with ideas.
There was a high degree offrustration, both corporately and individually, however, that there was
not the time available to develop and implement the good ideas which were being suggested and
to follow up on partnership and sponsorship opportunities. Everyone had plenty to do and
generating new revenues was just one more thing.
] am pleased to announce that through an internal reorganization within Facilities and Operations
(the Kortright Centre more specifically), we are moving on the recommendation by assigning Bob
Burchett to the newly created position of Corporate Representative - Business Development. It is
Il1tended that in this job, Bob will be bringing a degree of coordination to the ongoing initiatives
of Authority staff and intensifying our outreach activity to potential external partners. Following
is a brief explanation of the philosophy behind thejob.
There are many ideas and a great deal of expertise within the staff of the Authority. It will not be
Bob's job to replace these with his own but, rather, to serve as a focal point and a facilitator for the
development, assessment and implementation of revenue generating initiatives. These initiatives
will be treated as individual projects and It is anticipated that a unique set of ski lIs will be required
to bring each into being. Bob, acting as Project Manager, will see that the proper staff resources
are brought to each project team and will function himselfas a resource to the various teams
according to their needs. Teams will form and dissolve as ideas make their way through the
system. Bob will provide continuity, ensure coordination between projects and will work to
resolve conflicts between initiatives.
.../2
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, November 17,995 E97
- 2 -
With respect to the development of external partnerships, the expectation is that a significant
portion of Bob's time will be devoted to the cultivation of relationships with a variety of potential
sponsors and partners in the private sector. In conjunction with the appropriate staff within the
Authority, Bob will work towards developing strong business case proposals for the consideration
of sponsors, resulting in financial, promotional or in kind contributions towards Authority events,
programs and facilities.
By appointing Bob to this function we are supporting the excellent efforts that have been made by
staff to date and providing a process to help us with our revenue generating targets for the future.
Give Bob a call if you have an idea that isn't on the table yet, if you want to know what happened
to an idea you came up with or if you have a contact from outside the Authority that should be
pursued. Through this collaborative approach to the task, we will be able to bring more and better
ideas to the point of implementation in a much more timely fashion. We are excited at the
prospect ofbell1g able to solve some of our budget problems in this way and will be acting quickly
to bring some projects to a favourable conclusion very soon. Thank you for your continued
cooperation.
TERMINATION
The meeting terminated at 10:45 a.m., November 17, 1995.
Richard Whitehead Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
pI.
~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
'the metropolitan toronto ancfregion conservation authority
minutes E98
FEBRUARY 2, 1996 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT #6/95
ADVISORY BOARD
The Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village on February 2, 1996. The Chair, Richard Whitehead, called the meeting to
order at 10:10 a.m.
PRESENT Chair Richard Whitehead
Members Maria Augimeri
Randy Barber
Michael Di Biase
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Donna Patterson
Deborah Sword
Vice Chair of Authority Lois Hancey
ABSENT Members Paul Palleschi
MINUTES
Res. #C33/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THAT the minutes of Meeting #5/95 be approved.
CARRIED
E99 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
, . KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION
- Sale of Sawmill Equipment
KEY ISSUE
Approval to sell sawmill equipment at the Kortright Centre for Conservation
Res. #C34/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the sawmill equipment at the Kortright
Centre for Conservation be sold.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Initial programing at the Kortright Centre was based on resource management principles and
practices. One of the demonstrations offered was that of a working sawmill, using local timber, to
show how a renewable resource (lumber) was harvested and brought to market.
The sawmill program was offered from 1976 to 1984 with the equipment being operated by Centre
staff. When it became apparent that it was not practical to continue to operate the sawmill as an
education project the potential of using the equipment as a commercial mill was considered.
The various experts contacted advised that the equipment is out of date and has less value with
each passing year. Any persons buying the equipment would be interested in using it as a
supplement to their existing equipment, not as a turn key operation.
The nursery has no interest in the sawmill and various studies over the last decade has shown that
the mill cannot be operated profitably by the M.T.R.C.A.
The equipment in the sawmill building has not been used for any public or school programming
during the last ten years. It is not anticipated that the equipment would be used as part of any
future program at the Centre. The original reasons for shutting down the program are still valid
today:
. Expensive to operate - The equipment requires from 2-4 employees to operate and has a very
high maintenance cost.
. Negative operating impact on other Centre programs - the noise of the mill can be heard
throughout the property and eliminates the Centre's primary attraction - the feeling of being part
of nature. In addition an active mill would have a high level of truck and vehicle traffic, creating
additional wear on internal roads.
CONSERVATION AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 El00
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
1. KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION ICONTD.)
-Sale of Sawmill Equipment
. Serious safety concerns - The very nature of a sawmill requires a high level of training and
experience from its employees. Additional staff would have to be hired to run it and to train
other staff. Several experts have confirmed that the equipment is not currently up to provincial
standards and would require modification.
. The existing site was poorly chosen. When the site was used for school groups, staff found
that it was too far away from the Visitor's Centre to be reached during a standard program.
Wagon rides were used for a while to transport students and public but this was dropped
because the costs involved were too high.
FINANCIAL DETAilS
The disposal of the equipment would generate between $8,000 - $ 12,000 and free up badly
needed space. None of the equipment was donated and there are no impediments their sale. The
Foundation has no records on any of the sawmill equipment and has no concerns regarding their
disposal.
The sale would be accomplished through advertised tender.
Report prepared by: Bob Burchett, ext. 367
2. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE
-1996 Fee Schedule
KEY ISSUE
Revision of the 1996 Fee Schedule to raise fees at Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV).
Res. #C35/95 Moved by: Gerri lynn O'Connor
Seconded by: Randy Barber
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1996 Fee Schedule be revised to
increase admission fees to Black Creek Pioneer Village.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The 1996 Fee Schedule was prepared in September prior to the completion of the benchmarking of
attendance and revenues for the shortened operating season at BCPV and prior to provincial budget
decisions which have had further impact on MTRCA operations in 1996 and beyond. As a result of
the November announcements, BCPV's 1996 levy has been reduced by $500,000 and the
provincial museum grant has been cut by 10% or $24,000. The Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto is preparing to assume a prominent role to address the levy reduction, however in-
year fund raising toward operations will be a significant challenge.
El0l CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.I
-1996 Fee Schedule
Recognizing that the need in 1 996 for BCPV to incre.ase revenues is far more critical and immediate
than projected in September staff have reassessed all revenue generating areas, including fees, and
recommend increases in general admission for adults, seniors, and children for the 1996 season to
help sustain operations. Other revenue generating opportunities such as sponsorships are being
explored and will be aggressively pursued, however given the extreme severity of the funding
constraints facing BCPV, it must act immediately to strengthen its financial footing.
Fees were last raised in 1994 and BCPV's rates have dropped below other area attractions such as
Metro Zoo, Royal Ontario Museum lROMI, Cullen Gardens, Hockey Hall of Fame. Recent
government cutbacks are expected to result in higher fees at ROM, Art Gallery of Ontario lAGOI,
and Ontario Science Centre 10SC) at the beginning of their 1996 fiscal year.
Plans in 1996 initially called for the introduction of parking fees to generate much needed revenue
with an admission fee increase anticipated in 1997. The priority now placed on BCPV to generate a
greater proportion of its operating expenses has necessitated the recommendation to raise fees
now.
With respect to visitors perceptions of the cost of visiting and value for the dollar, survey results
indicate between 1993 and 1995 show substantial change. In 1993 70% of respondents said they
were somewhat or very satisfied with the value for the dollar and 6.1 % said they were not
satisfied. In 1995 satisfaction with value for the dollar increased substantially with over 85% of
respondents indicating they were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied, and only 1.8% indicating
they were dissatisfied. With respect to price, BCPV has been an exceptional, low priced value. The
recommended increase in rates will still maintain BCPV as very affordable entertainment and
outstanding value.
BenchmarkinQ
Benchmarking of BCPV's shorter season has now been established. BCPV achieved overall
attendance levels in 1995 of within 0.8% of target 11200 visitors less than same period in 1994).
It is encouraging to note that attendance was close to target in a year when August and fall
weather was not nearly as favourable as in 1994. Survey information also revealed a strong
increase in first-time visitors, indicating BCPV's strategy of increasing general awareness is showing
results. Admission revenues fell short of target by approximately $50,000. The gap between
revenue and projection has been identified in a shift in age breakdown showing a decline in the
number of adults paying full admission rates, and an increase in seniors, as well as a surprising
increase in complimentary pass use, particularly among Conservation Area and Kortright members
now entitled to free admission. The shortfall was identified early, monitored weekly, and managed
by BCPV to ensure adherence to budget. Having benchmarked the 8 month season, BCPV has
flagged the need to increase revenues by $50,000 in order to maintain the already constrained
operation.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 E102
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
2. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE lCONTD.)
-1996 Fee Schedule
FINANCIAL DETAilS
Fee increases will generate approximately $52,000 and are required to achieve revenue target
established in the 1996 budget. The recommended changes to the fee schedule are:
1995 GST 1996 1996
Item descriotion Gross 7% Base Gross
25.0 For general admission to the Black Creek Pioneer Village
during the regular operating season, per day;
25.1 for each adult from fifteen to sixty-four years of age. 7.50 0.52 7.48 8.00
25.2 for each child from five to fourteen years of age. 3.25 0.26 3.74 4.00
25.4 for each child four years of age or under visiting as
part of an organized group under supervision. 2.25 0.20 2.80 3.00
25.5 for each senior sixty-five years of age or over. 5.00 0.40 5.60 6.00
25.6 for each student fifteen years of age or over, with
student identification. 5.00 0.40 5.60 6.00
Report prepared by: Marty Brent, ext. 403
3. HEART lAKE AND GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREAS
-Outdoor Concerts
KEY ISSUE
Staff is providing a report to the Board regarding the concerts held at Heart Lake and Greenwood
Conservation Areas during 1995.
Res. #C36/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report regarding outdoor concerts
held at Heart lake and Greenwood Conservation Areas in 1995 be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to seek opportunities for special events at
Conservation Areas.
CARRIED
El03 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. HEART LAKE AND GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREAS
-Outdoor Concerts
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #3/95 proposals to hold a series of evening concerts at Heart Lake
Conservation Area and a musical festival at Greenwood Conservation Area were approved. These
events were intended to promote visitation and increased revenues for the conservation areas and
to promote the Authority through attracting a new client group. Two concerts featuring the
Brampton Symphony Orchestra and the Brampton Jazz Band were held at Heart Lake in July and
August of 1995. On August 20, 1995, Greenwood hosted the Downhome Festival featuring East
coast music, food and hospitality. A summary of the results of these events is outlined below.
DOWN HOME FESTIVAL
Attendance - 2.420
Revenue
Gate $17,215
Food and Beverage Sales 13,399
TOTAL $30,614
Exoenditures
Printing and Advertising $5,928
Musicians 6,000
Other Entertainment 1,286
Toilet and Stage Rental 1,507
Additional Staffing 2,235
Food and Beverage Costs 5,809
TOTAL $22,767
NET $ 7 ,847
BRAMPTON SYMPHONY
Attendance - 870
Revenue
Gate $3,695
Food and Beverage Sales- 440
TOTAL $4,135
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 El04
- .-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. HEART LAKE AND GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREAS lCONTD.)
-Outdoor Concerts
Exoenditures
Printing and Advertising $2,095
Musicians 1,210
Stage Rental 320
Additional Staffing 300
Food and Beverage Costs 380
TOTAL $4,305
NET (170)
BRAMPTONJAZZBAND
Attendance - 280
Revenue
Gate - $1,254
Food and Beverage Sales- 220
TOTAL $1,454
Exoenditures
Printing and Advertising $ 1 , 1 00
Musicians 400
Stage Rental 320
Additional Staffing 300
Food and Beverage Costs 260
TOTAL $ 2,380
NET (926)
In addition to the above noted expenditures at Heart Lake, $5,940. was spent on hydro installation,
lighting and capital improvements to accommodate concerts and other special events.
CONCLUSIONS
The Greenwood Downhome Festival was considered a success from both a financial and
promotional point of view. Plans are moving ahead to proceed with a repeat of this event in August
of 1996. It is hoped that it will be possible to book one or two premium performers for the '96
event to increase the draw and raise the profile of the festival.
El05 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
3. HEART LAKE AND GREENWOOD CONSERVATION AREAS (CONTD.)
-Outdoor Concerts
Staff felt that, as a first time event, the Brampton Symphony concert at Heart Lake was successful.
We were, however, somewhat disappointed by the draw for the Brampton Jazz Band. It was felt
that a jazz concert is perhaps more of a Uniche" event and needs to be promoted in a more targeted
way. Plans are proceeding for a repeat Brampton Symphony concert on July 17, 1996 and the
possibility of booking other types of acts is being investigated. Lessons learned through these initial
events will permit us to effect improvements which will turn the marginal losses into net profits and
help to recover the expense of the improvements made to the Area.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, ext. 252
4. FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS DIVISION
-Revenue Producing Initiatives
This report was amended to include reference to the Public Use Strategy.
KEY ISSUE
The Facilities and Operations Division, in an effort to improve its delivery of regional recreation
opportunities, while offsetting reduced funding from traditional sources, is undertaking a
coordinated approach to revenue generation. Endorsement of this approach is sought.
Res. #C37/95 Moved by: Michael Di Biase
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report outlining revenue
generating initiatives dated February 7, 1996, be received, as amended;
AND FURTHER THAT the approach to funding land management activities through revenue
generating activities in selected locations be endorsed.
CARRIED
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 El06
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS DIVISION lCONTD.1
-Revenue Producing Initiatives
BACKGROUND
At a joint meeting of the Finance and Administration Advisory Board and the Authority Executive,
held on January 12, 1996, staff was directed to proceed with a number of expenditure reductions
as outlined in the Authority's Draft Operating Budget. Consistent with the Authority's commitment
to Watershed Management as its core business, budget reductions fell most heavily on the services
provided by the Facilities and Operations Division. For example, in 1996 the net operating budget
for the Conservation Areas Section will be reduced by approximately 17%, and since 1992, the
Section expenditure budget has been reduced a total of 27%.
In 1988, the Authority embarked on an effort to seek partnerships with the private sector to
facilitate the provision of recreation opportunities on Authority lands. These efforts culminated in
the establishment of what is now Wild Water Kingdom which operates on Authority land at
Claireville. While this operation has generated significant annual revenues, which the Authority has
used for both capital improvements, and the implementation of watershed management activities,
further initiatives in terms of revenue generation have not occurred of late. This has been due to
concerns with determining the appropriate role for the Authority in recreation developement and,
associated with this, a desire to complete the development of the Public Use Strategy prior to
making further commitments.
The Public Use Strategy is now in place and has provided the Authority with a clear framework for
evaluating the acceptability of recreation uses on its lands. In addition, the fiscal realities now
facing the Authority and other public agencies have created the need for a reconsideration of the
Authority's role with regard to recreation development, and the establishment of various type of
partnerships. Facilites and Operations has developed a pro-active strategy for dealing with the
effects of reduced funding from traditional sources. This strategy centres around the development
of a variety of revenue generating initiatives while maintaining services at locations and times when
they will have the most significant impact on the public.
RA TIONAlE
In addition to operating public use facilities, the Facilities and Operations Division is responsible for
management and maintenance of the Authority's land holdings. The work of the Division has
historically been funded through municipal levy, and revenues derived from gate receipts and
various user fees. The Authority has an obligation to continue to adequately manage the lands
which it hold in trust for the public. Given reduced levels of municipal funding, staff feel that, in
the longer term, these activities can be funded through generation of further revenues generated by
public use activities on selected Authority lands.
El07 CONSERVATION AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS DIVISION (CONTD.)
-Revenue Producing Initiatives
OVERAll STRATEGY
At Conservation and related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/95, a memorandum
regarding business development was received and a staff reorganization involving the appointment
of a Corporate Representative - Business Development was approved. This reorganization
represented one step in the overall approach to revenue generation and service delivery for the
Facilities and Operations Division.
Staff believe that there are a number of Authority properties which can be developed for recreation
use while improving the overall ecological health and integrity of the watershed. In particular, the
Authority, in the pursuit of its original flood control objectives, and in the course of purchasing
hazard lands and environmentally significant properties, acquired significant acreages of table land.
Much of this table land is acceptable for various types of more intensive public use, and such public
use, whether operated directly by the Authority, or in the context of a partnership, can generate
revenues which can be devoted to managing valleys and other significant natural areas. Based on
this concept, the overall strategy for the Facilities and Operations Division through the next three
years involves the pursuit of a number of revenue generating opportunities to be concentrated at a
small number of sites. These sites would be coincident with the existing active use Conservation
Areas, with Claireville Conservation Area being a particular focus due to its location in the market
place and abundance of non-sensitive table lands. In addition to this, a number of initiatives,
including special events, and new amenities and services have been undertaken at active use
Conservation Areas. Area Superintendents have been given a clear mandate to pursue further
initiatives of this type.
Development sites will be linked by the valley corridors which will remain in their current natural
state, and which provide opportunities for less intensive recreation such as trail use. The costs of
managing these lands and maintaining recreation use will be borne through revenues generated in
development nodes. Ultimately it is hoped that the public use component of the Authority's
operations could be carried out without the need for municipal levy and that these operations would
be totally self-funding.
Historically, the Authority's public use facilities including the Conservation Areas, Black Creek
Pioneer Village, and the Kortright Centre for Conservation have had a stronger orientation toward
revenue generation than most public facilities. Despite this, revenue generation has been somewhat
restricted because of:
-bureaucratic organizational structures;
-a reliance on traditional sources of capital funding;
-the lack of a clear process to determine acceptable uses;
-little active pursuit of partnerships;
-no clear mandate for staff to seek new opportunities for revenue generation.
Over the past six months the Facilities and Operations Division has undertaken a number of
measures to remove these impediments, including a staff reorganization and the active pursuit of
new and creative ways of delivering service to the public. While more work is required to reach
long term dbjectives, a number of initiatives are currently underway. Some of these are outlined
below.
CONSERVATION AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 El08
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
4. FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS DIVISION (CONTD.)
-Revenue Producing Initiatives
REVENUE GENERATING INITIATIVES
Partnershios
As noted above Claireville has been slated as a potential site for more intensive use. A variety of
partnerships are actively being discussed at this location, including the development of municipal
facilities in partnership with the City of Brampton on Authority land, full size and "pitch and putt"
golf courses, an indoor/outdoor driving range facility and an equestrian facility. Partnerships are
also being discussed at a number of other sites. Some examples of these include the development
of a permanent Scout camp at Cold Creek and partnerships with Ontario Hydro for the
establishment of demonstration sites for micro hydro generators.
Caoital Develooment
The 1996 Facilities and Operations Capital Development Budget makes provision for a number of
developments which would enhance revenue productions. Campground development and the
establishment of a water play facility is planned for Greenwood and construction of a retail store for
Indian Line Campground is currently underway. While in general, these projects have been financed
from reserves, it is anticipated that a number of other innovative sources of funding will be sought
in the future. New developments will only be pursued after having undergone the review process
set out in the Public Use Strategy and successfully meeting the test of a return on investment
analysis.
Soecial Events
The Kortright Centre, Black Creek Pioneer Village and the Conservation Areas have experienced a
great deal of success with various special events over the past few years. New ideas for events are
actively being pursued including concerts, shows, and sporting events. Some of these would be
operated directly by the Authority, and in other instances, the Authority would provide the site
while the event would be run by a promoter or perhaps, a service club.
Services
Success in the area of revenue generation will depend partly on retaining the approximately
850,000 visitors who use Authority public facilities on an annual basis. It is important therefore
that services for the public continue to be improved. Staff are looking at improving existing
programs and services through such measures as sponsorship lfor the Bruce's Mill Maple Syrup
Program for example), and through improvements to existing food services at Conservation Areas.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Recognizing that funding from tax-based sources is likely to shrink for the foreseeable future, the
Facilities and Operations Division is aiming toward financial self-sufficiently for the facilities it
operates on behalf of the public. It is recognized that this approach may require some capital
investment, but such investment will be built around a solid business plan and will be based on the
principle of generating a net revenue. This net revenue will assist the Authority in delivering its
core business of watershed management. The approach outlined here is premised on the need to
maintain public services while reducing the burden on the general taxpayer.
Report prepared by: Andy Wickens, ext. 252
El09 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS DIVISION
-Vendor Permits
KEY ISSUE
Approval to charge a Vendor fee to private food service caterers serving customers in the
Conservation Areas
Res. #C38/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Gerri lynn O'Connor
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a fee of $50 be charged for a Vendor
permit when private caterers provide food services to group picnics in the Conservation Areas.
CARRIED
RATIONALE
Currently a private business providing a service to our Conservation Area visitors pays no entrance
fee, permit fee or any other fee for the right to do business on Authority property. The only
exception to this is the 15% surcharge applied to a private caterer serving customers at Black Creek
Pioneer Village. This charge is based on the private firm's gross billings.
By conservative estimate outside catering firms service at least 250 of our picnic groups each
season. The numbers are probably higher but since there is no notification requirement we cannot
be sure of the actual figures.
Most of these corporate parties have more than 200 people. Based on our food service cost the
average catering bill for these groups is in the $2,000-$3,000 range ($1 0-$20/personl. This means
that the private sector is generating $500,000 to $750,000 on Authority lands each year.
Unfortunately there is no way of determining the gross billings of any individual picnic party. The
lack of staff in the parks makes this method impractical. The alternative method is to charge a day
use or seasonal fee directly to the vendors.
A vendor charge of $50 per party would generate more than $12,000 per year across the
Authority. This would represent 1.6% to 2.5% of a vendor's gross billings to their client.
The information gathered through the permit process will give staff a more accurate picture of the
number of groups using caterers in the Conservation Areas. If the initial dollar figures are correct
then staff will aggressively examine all options related to expanding our food service catering
operation in the areas.
CONSERVATION AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 Ell0
- --
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
5. FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS DIVISION lCONTD.1
-Vendor Permits
WORK TO BE DONE
This fee can be incorporated into our existing procedures with a minimum of effort.
. Collection - Would be done at the gatehouse and treated as an entry charge. Receipts would
be issued from the register. No special accounting procedures would be necessary but a permit
form needs to be designed.
. Informing our clients - Customer Service will print a notice at the bottom of all confirmation
forms informing our clients of the fee and asking that they pass this information to their
caterers. All Areas will post appropriate signage at their gates.
. Informing the industry - Any firms that are known to MTRCA staff will receive a letter regarding
the new fee. A press release will also be issued to specialty and trade magazines.
FINANCIAL DETAilS
If the initial estimates of the number of catered picnics are correct, then permit fees for 1996 will
generate about $12,000. There will be minimal costs associated with implementing this policy and
these will be absorbed by the zone budgets.
Report prepared by: Bob Burchett, ext. 367
6. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE
KEY ISSUE
Formal request by the Authority for the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto to undertake a
fundraising project in support of Black Creek Pioneer Village operations.
Res. #C39/95 Moved by: Gerri lynn O'Connor
Seconded by: Randy Barber
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority request that the
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto release the balance of the Black Creek Growth
Endowment Fund to support Village operations in 1996;
THA T the assistance of the Foundation be provided in raising operating funds for the Village
through a membership development program and;
THAT the combined target for these two initiatives be $500,000 for 1996;
AND FURTHER THAT the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto be thanked for their
continued support of Black Creek Pioneer Village.
CARRIED
Elll CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
6. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.)
BACKGROUND
At the January 12, 1996 joint meeting of the Finance and Administration Advisory Board and
Executive Committee, Resolutions #F47 /95 and #E202/95 were passed authorizing staff to proceed
with certain net expenditure reductions in order to achieve budget targets established through
recent funding announcements.
One measure identified in the package of actions identified was the replacement of $500,000 of
municipal levy support to Black Creek Pioneer Village operations with funds raised by the
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. The budget was amended to reflect this measure on
the strength of a tentative commitment by Foundation officials with the understanding that the
formal approval of the Foundation Board would be required.
RA TIONAlE
For some time it has been suggested that the future of the Village will depend on its ability to
attract new sources of funding. The Foundation's participation in a fundraising campaign to this
end is welcome and will be a significant component of the new annual financing scheme which will
have to be developed in response to our funding partners' direction to us. The funds raised through
this campaign are required to support the budget in 1996 and, as such, immediate action is
necessary to ensure the Foundation's ability to meet the target.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The main mechanism for raising these funds will be an aggressive membership development
campaign. Research into the practice of other similar facilities, design of an attractive product and
a marketing campaign to sell these memberships is required and, in fact, has commenced in
anticipation of the necessary approvals.
As noted above, an annual campaign of this nature will form only a part of the financing scheme for
the Village in the future. It will be essential to the long term survival of the Village that a
comprehensive business plan be developed in 1996 which outlines a course of action aimed at
putting the balance of the components of the scheme in place. Issues such as the integration of the
various fundraising initiatives into a coherent package, the changes to the product required to
attract both visitors and sponsors to the Village and the most effective governance model to direct
the operation will have to be addressed quickly so that the anticipated budget difficulties in 1997
can be resolved. The assistance of a small working group made up of Advisory Board members,
Foundation members and staff would benefit the development of such a plan.
Report prepared by: Ken Owen, Extension 255
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 El12
SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE
-Business Plan Development Sub-Committee
KEY ISSUE
Establishment of Terms of Reference for a Subcommittee to develop a Business Plan for Black Creek
Pioneer Village.
R'es. #C40/95 Moved by: Deborah Sword
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a sub-committee be formed to
recommend a business plan for Black Creek Pioneer Village to the Conservation and Related Land
Management Advisory Board;
THA T the sub-committee be directed to make its recommendations to the April 19, 1996 meeting of
the Advisory Board;
AND FURTHER THAT the sub-committee be made up of the Chair of the Authority. the Chair and
one member of the Conservation and Related land Management Advisory Board and one
representative of the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Deborah Sword
Res. #C41/95 Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THA T paragraph three of the main motion be deleted and replaced with the following;
AND FURTHER THAT the sub-committee be made up of the Chair of Authority, the Chair of the
Conservation and Related land Management Advisory Board, Councillor Randy Barber, Councillor
Maria Augimeri, and one representative of the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Through another communication to this meeting, it is being recommended that the Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto be requested to assist in financing the operation of the Village. That
communication also suggests that a business plan be developed to integrate this fund raising effort
of the Foundation with other measures which are reqUired to modify the financing scheme for the
Village to ensure its viability.
El13 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.)
-Business Plan Development Sub-Committee
A Terms of Reference for the subcommittee have been developed and are attached to this report.
Included in this attachment is a recommended make up of the subcommittee.
RATIONALE
It is imperative that a solid business plan be developed and approved as soon as possible so that
the actions outlined in the plan can be implemented in a timely manner.
FINANCIAL DETAilS
The importance of this project and the speed with which it must be completed may require the
engagement of outside consulting expertise. Should the subcommittee find this to be necessary,
funds will be identified and Executive Committee approval sought to incur such expenses.
Report prepared by: Ken Owen, ext. 255
BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE
BUSINESS PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
OBJECTIVE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
To work with staff in the development of a Business Plan for BCPV which will be recommended for
adoption at the April 19, 1996 Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board
meeting.
OBJECTIVE OF THE PLAN
The Plan will:
. Establish multi-year budget targets
. Provide direction at a conceptual level of how these targets will be achieved
. Provide a governance model for the Village
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 El14
-
SECTION I . ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
7. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.1
-Business Plan Development Sub-Committee
In order to develop these outcomes in the Plan, the sub-committee will:
. Examine the revenues and expenses of the operation of the Village
. Consider the impacts of raising or lowering these figures on Village operations
. Consider the Village operations as they relate to the Authority's overall corporate strategy and
direction
. Consider the direction of the Authority's funding partners
. Examine and recommend alternate ways of doing business that should be developed in pursuit
. of a more stable funding environment
. Research and examine a range of governance models and recommend an effective model which
recognizes the need for timely and accountable decisions.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The sub-committee will be made up of the Authority Chair, the Chair and one member of the
Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board and one representative of the
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. The sub-committee will draw support from Authority
staff according to its needs.
8. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE
-Sponsorship Development
KEY ISSUE:
Report on progress of Sponsorship Development at Black Creek Pioneer Village.
Res. #C42/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Gerri lynn O'Connor
THA T the report, dated January 21, 1996, be received.
CARRIED
E115 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
8. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.1
- Sponsorship Development
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #10/95, held November 24, 1995, Resolution #272/95 was adopted
recommending staff proceed with developing a sponsorship project for Black Creek Pioneer Village.
Contracted services of a sponsorship specialist are to be engaged to develop and negotiate
sponsorships and partnerships with BCPV in an effort to increase revenue sources and reduce
dependence on levy in 1997 and beyond.
Terms of Reference for the selection of a consultant for sponsorship development were developed
and are attached with this report. With assistance from MTRCA's new business development
officer, the request for proposals was sent to nine firms selected. Following the closing date to
receive proposals of Wednesday January 24, 1996, submissions will be reviewed and a short list of
firms will be interviewed. Target date for consultant selection is February 5, with expenditure
approval to be considered by the Executive on February 9.
To date, BCPV has received confirmation of interest from 6 firms.
FINANCIAL DETAilS
There are no details to report at this time.
WORK TO BE DONE
This project has been planned in consultation with the Conservation Foundation and will continue to
be co-ordinated with their ongoing initiatives.
Report prepared by: Marty Brent, ext. 403
9. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE
-Pay Parking Operation
KEY ISSUE:
Report on delivery of pay parking options at Black Creek Pioneer Village.
Res. #C42/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Gerri lynn O'Connor
THAT The report on delivery of pay parking options at Black Creek Pioneer Village be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the option of a booth staffed and operated by Black Creek Pioneer Village be
implemented.
CARRIED
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 El16
-
SECTION IV -ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE lCONTD.)
-Pay Parking Operation
BACKGROUND:
At Authority Meeting #8/95, on September 22, 1995, Resolution #A223/95 was passed introducing
a parking fee for Black Creek Pioneer Village. Resolution #224/95 directed staff to take into
consideration the variety of ways of charging parking fees and further investigate obtaining the
cooperation or services of the North York Parking Authority and York University and report back to
the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board.
BCPV staff have investigated both direct delivery and contracted services. The following options
have been explored:
(1) Staffed parking booth operated directly by BCPV.
(2) Pay/Display system - equipment in an unstaffed lot, but patrolled at regular intervals.
(a) operated by North York Parking Authority on contract
(b) operated by BCPV
(3) MedallionlToken system- equipment in an unstaffed lot with payment and receipt of exit token
at BCPV admissions desk.
Assumptions
. previous projections have been revised to reflect 1995 actual attendance levels which now
benchmark the May-December season.
. average daily volume of 85 cars, 244 open days, totalling 20,000 cars
. $4.00 flat rate per day per car.
. some usage by York University students at peak times has not been factored but is highly
probable given their overload problem.
. capital improvements of $23,500 for lighting and booth only are included in the 1996 capital
budget. Purchase of Pay/Display equipment or automated equipment for token system would
increase capital costs, and are discussed in relevant options.
York University
BCPV staff were directed to explore parking opportunities with York University. York has not
responded to our invitation to consider operating the BCPV lot under management agreement,
except to indicate they anticipate greater parking needs in 1996 than they can supply. Their own
budget cutbacks and capital project priorities have precluded them from responding with any firm
proposal at this time. York University has indicated BCPV could benefit from economies of scale by
making equipment purchases for Pay/Display units with York University.
York University and the Village have had a cooperative and amicable relationship for many years.
During our Pioneer Festival and Fall Fair, as well as the North York Winter Carnival, the University
has graciously allowed the use of lot 6A, free of charge, to us and our visitors.
El17 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION IV -ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.)
-Pay Parking Operation
The expansion plans at York are causing a shortage of parking spaces on the campus and York
would prefer not to build another temporary lot on campus and therefore may be interested in the
availability of a portion of our lot as an overflow to the University sometime during September
1996.
York University uses the "Pay/Display" system in many lots and will be converting more. The
University is also interested in pursuing the joint purchase of parking machines, parking lot upgrade
tenders, and perhaps security camera surveillance, with the Village as part of their tendering
process.
Since neither confirmation of interest or financial projections for partnership with York are available,
it is recommended BCPV initiate pay parking through one of the other options and build in flexibility
to negotiate terms with York University to handle any student overflow parking needs they may
have.
Ootion 1 Staffed oarkinQ booth ooerated directlv bv BCPV:.
In this option the lot would be equipped with a parking booth and staffed daily May through
December. Delivery of this option requires the purchase of a parking booth, installation of hydro
and phone service, hiring of seasonal staff, and incorporation of a cash collection procedure into the
current BCPV system. To manage fee collection and traffic flow effectively, the public entrance to
the lot would become the Murray Ross Parkway entrance. The Shoreham entrance would be limited
to delivery vehicles and MTRCA overflow needs. During weekends, it is recommended access into
the Head Office parking lot be restricted to MTRCA staff .
The location of the parking booth is key to minimizing the vulnerability to theft and providing
security for staff. The recommended location of the booth is at the north end of the lot close to
both the Visitors Centre and the street which will facilitate quick access into the lot, but not affect
drop off traffic, buses etc.. On very busy days, extra staff would process cars more quickly.
Gross Taxes Operational Net Revenue
Revenue lPST + GST) Costs
$80.0 $10.5 $24.8 $44.7
AdvantaQes:
. direct customer service with a staffed booth, i.e. information, directions, etc.
. improved security for parking lot from vandalism
. access to a phone for customers with an emergency
. ensures all users pay parking fee
. recognizes special categories that would not be charged parking lstaff, buses, Authority
members).
. permits direct night-time collection when required le.g. pre-arranged Sportsplex or York U.
needs)
. no exit barriers to trap cars after hours.
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 EllS
-
SECTION IV -ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.1
-Pay Parking Operation
Disadvantaaes:
. can be a target for theft
Option 2 Pay and Display Svstem:
The "Pay and Display" system needs no gates/barriers. This system requires staff time for the
patrolling of lot and the collection, sorting and banking of funds.
With the "Pay/Display" system, visitors would arrive and park in the lot. Signage directs the
visitors to the "Pay and Display" machine where they pay the parking fee and receive a timed
stamped ticket. The visitors return to their car and display the ticket on their dash board.
The parking fee can be calibrated for an hour charge or a flat fee for the day. The "Pay and
Display" machine is being used very effectively by North York Parking Authority and York
University.
The "Pay/Display" machine can be set up with a drive up lane, where visitors can drive up to the
machine, pay the fee, receive their ticket, and park. This would become a bottleneck on busy days.
Charge cards can be used in these machines with automatic authorization for determining an
authentic card.
The lot would be patrolled to ensure compliance. MTRCA/village staff can be issued a sticker so
that they will not be fined. Special guests can be issued a guest card to place on their dash.
This system is not customer service driven, and presents some basic challenges to BCPV which is
focusing on strong customer service. If customers have to walk back to their cars to leave the
ticket on the dash, they may be dissatisfied before they even arrive at the Visitors Centre.
Compliance is enforced through fines, but with periodic patrolling, there is the potential to "beat the
system" . On the otherhand, the simple presence of the pay/display unit will compell most night-
time users to pay, even if the lot is not patrolled. This may mean that additional revenue could be
generated from BCPV night time functions. It could also be a source of annoyance for MTRCA
night-time use.. Given the size of the BCPV lot, two units would be required to minimize customer
incovenience, but also more costly to operate.
Ootion 2A: Pay/Display System Operated by North York Parkina Authoritv
The North York Parking Authority is willing to operate the lot through a management agreement.
Their service would include purchase of machine, patrolling of lot, collecting of funds, depositing to
the MTRCA account and supplying monthly computer reports as to car counts. Their service
contract includes the provision of the equipment, but there is no option for BCPV ultimately to own
it. It is estimated BCPV would have paid for one unit 1$20,000) through rental within four years.
E119 CONSERVATION AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
SECTION IV -ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.)
-Pay Parking Operation
On busy days (i.e. Festival), North York Parking Authority would staff the lot and manually collect
parking fees in order to manage peak volume.
Gross Less Operational Net Revenue
Revenue Taxes Costs
1 machine $80.0 $10.5 $18.8 $50.7
2 machines $80.0 $10.5 $24.8 $44.7
Advantaaes
. takes advantage of economies of scale through North York system
. accommodates night-time opportunities without requiring staffing
. lot remains open and accessible, no barriers
. reduces MTRCA capital costs .
Disadvantaaes
. not customer service driven
. system is less flexible about recognizing special circumstances lunless you have a special
sticker when you enter you may have to hike all the way from the Visitors Centre to your car to
leave one, or you have to pay the parking)
. machines are vulnerable to vandalism
. system is open to non-compliance
Ootion 2B: BCPV Operates the "Pay/Display" System
Under this option BCPV would have to purchase the payldisplay equipment outright, set up a
control system, hire staff to operate it, patrol the lot, produce revenue reports, etc. The capital
investment for pay/display equipment 1$20,000 per unit) was not factored into the initial capital
budget so an adjustment would be required.
Gross Operational Net Oper. Capital
Revenue Taxes Costs Revenue Expense
1 machine $80.0 $10.5 $18.8 $50.7 $20.0
2 machines $80.0 $10.5 $18.8 $50.7 $40.0
Advantaaes:
. BCPV owns equipment
. lot remains open, no barriers
. BCPV could take advantage of economies of scale through assistance of York University
. accommodates night-time opportunities both independent of and in conjunction with York
University.
Disadvantaaes
. not customer service driven
. System is less flexible about recognizing special circumstances
. machines are vulnerable to vandalism
. system is open to non-compliance
. additional capital cost of $20,000 for one unit or $40,000 for two to be added to capital budget
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 E120
-
SECTION IV -ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE lCONTD.)
-Pay Parking Operation
Ootion 3: Medallion or Token Svstem
This system requires a set of automatic gates controlling entrance and exit. Access from both
Shoreham Drive and Murray Ross Parkway would be possible by installing two sets of entrance/exit
gates. One set of access gates costs about the same as a parking booth and is factored into the
capital budget. To open the Shoreham entrance, which is a wide laneway, it would require 2 set of
gates. As visitors arrive, the automatic ticket is dispensed and when removed, the gate raises,
allowing the visitor to park in the lot. Signage is used to direct the visitor to take the ticket to an
existing staffed area li.e. the Admissions Desk) to redeem the ticket for a token. The token is used
on the exit side of the control gates. After hours the gate arms would be up, otherwise trapped
cars would have no way of getting tokens to exit.
The token system uses existing staff and cash handling system to process the parking fee. The
visitors do not need to pay twice. As visitors arrive at the desk to pay the admission fee, they also
pay the parking fee at the same time.
The token system has some draw backs. Visitors may lose the token and may cause a delay when
exiting the lot. It is not conducive to fee collection location for night-time use of Sportsplex or
York.
The lot would need to revert to a flat rate type parking lot with staff to maximize the revenue during
very busy weekends, i.e. Festival..
Est. Less Operational Net Capital
Revenue Taxes Costs Return Exp.
1 entrance $80.0 $10.5 $10.0 $59.5 in budget
2 entrances $80.0 $10.5 $10.0 $59.5 $10.0
AdvantaCles
. lower capital outlay than Pay/Display
. lower staffing costs than with staffed booth
. uses existing staff resources (admission desk with cash till)
. maintains one time/place payment
DisadvantaCles
. involves barriers
. visitors who misplace token could cause exit bottleneck
. does not provide convenient method to generate night-time fees
AFTER HOURS USE
The after hours use of the Village lot is very sparse. Wedding groups and corporate functions, as
well as special evening events such as Christmas by Lamplight, account for approximately 2.8% of
total attendance. This would not generate sufficient income to warrant attempting to collect for
parking.
E121 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION IV -ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
9. BLACK CREEK PIONEER VilLAGE (CONTD.)
-Pay Parking Operation
The possibility of York University students using our lot outside Village hours would not generate
substantial revenue due to the fact that the parking lots at York are not overflowing during night
classes. The only exception to this will be from use of the new Sportsplex, and 1996 will provide a
benchmark for that potential volume for BCPV.
ZONING
At present, the Village parking lot is zoned as "03" or semi public open space. This designation
does not permit the operation off a pay parking facility. North York By-law #7625 is being
reviewed as it relates to parking in North York. The review will deal with the rezoning issue, the
parking space dimensions, etc. The public meeting scheduled for November 1995 was deferred to
January 25, 1996.
If the By-law is not changed, the Village would need to proceed with a site plan and seek change to
the zoning designation to allow pay for parking operation.
Recommended Ootion
Placing priority on customer service and revenue generation, the staffed booth operated by BCPV
offers the best general option, although it does not generate the most revenue in year one. It is the
most flexible as far as customers and MTRCA users are concerned, and requires a minimal capital
outlay. It allows for "selectivity" in waiving fees for Authority members, Watershed Strategy
members staff, etc. and eliminates the potential of after hours users being trapped in the lot. It
offers visitors improved lot security from daytime vandalism, and can be operated directly by BCPV
or by arrangement for York University for evening events.
Report prepared by: Marty Brent, ext. 403
10. IMPACT OF FUNDING REDUCTIONS ON PUBLIC USE FACILITIES
KEY ISSUE
Funding reductions have necessitated the substantial reduction of staff in the Conservation Areas
Program and this report outlines the new organizational structure which has been put in place to
accommodate these reductions. A tentative commitment from the Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto to raise $500,000 towards the operating deficit at Black Creek Pioneer Village has
eliminated the need to make significant staff reductions in 1996.
Res. #C43/95 Moved by: Randy Barber
Seconded by: Gerri lynn O'Connor
THAT the report on the impact of funding reductions on public use facilities be received.
CARRIED
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 E122
-
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
10. IMPACT OF FUNDING REDUCTIONS ON PUBLIC USE FACILITIES
BACKGROUND
In 1993, the Authority confirmed that watershed management was its core business. As part of
this corporate decision, it was decided that resources would be shifted from public use programs to
support watershed management initiatives. In each budget prepared since that time, this decision
has been incrementally implemented.
Recent funding announcements by the Province and the Authority's member municipalities have
placed severe financial pressure on the Authority and, in an effort to protect its core business, the
shift in resources which has been occurring, has been accelerated. Facilities and Operations has
responded to the challenges presented by this by pursuing new revenue generating initiatives and
partnerships. While a number of new sources of revenue are included in the 1996 estimates,
substantial improvements on the revenue side of our budget will take a number of years to properly
develop. As a result, immediate measures were required in order to meet the corporate budget
objectives established.
Conservation Areas
The majority of costs associated with this program area can be attributed to staff at the field level.
Consequently, significant reductions in cost must focus on this aspect of the operation. In
considering the reorganization of the fewer staff resources available, the following principles were
applied:
. We must maintain our ability to maintain.
Our prime concern is the protection of the ecological integrity of the Authority's lands. It is
important, therefore, to have an adequate complement of staff, properly equipped to respond to
resource management needs in the Areas and adjacent Authority owned lands.
. Revenue.
Our ability to meet our resource protection responsibilities in the long term, not just on Authority
lands but in the watersheds as well, will hinge on our ability to replace levy with self-generated
revenue. Revenue cannot be generated at closed facilities so a lower level of programming at all of
the areas is preferable to the same level of programming at fewer Areas.
. Skills are more important than length of tenure.
All existing staff are extremely competent at what they do. The difficult decisions of who will be
given the challenge of operating our public use facilities in the future will be based on the skills the
individual brings to the job. Entrepreneurial skills and the ability to reach out into the community to
gain support will be key.
E123 CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996
-
SECTION IV -ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
10. IMPACT OF FUNDING REDUCTIONS ON PUBLIC USE FACILITIES
. Team work.
The skills of our staff are an Authority resource, regardless of a person's reporting location.
Allocating those resources based on the fluctuating needs of each Area throughout the season will
create efficiencies and reduce the need for supplementary staff.
Having applied these principles, it was decided that an organizational structure which puts in place
a zone management concept was the most appropriate direction to take. In this concept, field level
management ranks are trimmed in an attempt to leave in place sufficient staff resources to meet the
expectations of the public and the Authority. The new organizational structure has the fOllowing
four zones with each being administered by one Superintendent:
North - Albion Hills, Glen Haffy, Palgrave, Cold Creek and Bolton Resource
Management Tract
South - Heart Lake and Claireville
Central - Boyd, Kortright Centre for Conservation and Nashville Tract
East - Bruce's Mill, Greenwood, Petticoat Creek, Frenchmans Bay and Glen Major
Each zone has been assigned a complement of full time and seasonal staff which will be deployed
to various locations within the zone according to seasonal needs. Where there is no need to staff
facilities within a zone during particular times of the year, staff will be either moved to other zones
where there is a need or, alternately, will be laid off for a temporary period of time.
These measures will provide for the continued operation of all of the current active conservation
areas on a more seasonal basis and reduce the levy requirement for this program by approximately
$700,000 annually.
Black Creek Pioneer VillaQe
The programs of the Village contribute marginally to the Authority's core business of watershed
management yet draw substantial support from municipal levy. This disparity has continued for
some time because it is recognized by Authority staff and members that the facility makes an
important contribution to the community in ways other than supporting the core business of the
parent organization. Realizing this situation needs to be rectified, considerable effort has been put
forward in the last several years to change the Village operation such that it is more financially self
sufficient.
As noted above, new revenue initiatives take time to develop to the point where they can replace
contributions made by the public purse. The momentum gained by these efforts over time would
have been lost had the program at the Village been reduced significantly. Fortunately, the
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto intervened with an offer to take on responsibility for
raising $500,000 in operational funding for 1996, making it possible to allow a number of initiatives
under way to develop for another year. New revenue initiatives, special events, an aggressive
membership development campaign, retaining a corporate sponsorship development consultant and
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, FEBRUARY 2, 1996 E124
-
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
10. IMPACT OF FUNDING REDUCTIONS ON PUBLIC USE FACILITIES
pursuing the ongoing capital campaign will improve the financial performance of the facility for the
short term. For the longer term, 1996 will be used to develop a business plan which will include
recommendations for a number of significant changes to the Village and its products which will
ensure our ability to meet our curatorial responsibilities. These recommendations will be the subject
of further reports as the year progresses.
RA TIONAlE
The Authority's public use facilities provide a valuable service to some 850,000 visitors annually.
Significant natural and cultural heritage resources within and adjacent to these facilities are
managed in conjunction with public use programs and, to varying degrees, user fees generated at
these facilities help to offset the costs of managing these resources.
Recent measures taken to reorganize and restructure the ways in which programs are delivered
have reduced this program area's demand on levy in recognition of the Authority's desire to
concentrate on its core business. At the same time, recognition of the value placed by the greater
community on access to the open space system under the Authority's control for a variety of
outdoor recreational pursuits has been accommodated. The strategy in the longer term is to
eventually reduce costs and increase revenues to achieve the ultimate goal of program self
sufficiency.
Report prepared by: Ken Owen, Extension 255
TERMINA TION
The meeting terminated at 11 :20 a.m. on February 2, 1996.
Richard Whitehead Craig Mather
Chair Secreta ry- T reas u rer
pI.