HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget/Audit Advisory Board 2011 khk
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #1/11
April 8, 2011
The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #1/11, was held in the Victoria Room, Black
Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 8, 2011. The Chair David Barrow, called the
meeting to order at 11:25 a.m.
PRESENT
At Start of Meeting in Progress At End of
Meeting When Arrived Meeting
Maria Augimeri Yes Yes Member
David Barrow Yes Yes Member
Bob Callahan Yes Yes Member
Dave Ryan Yes Yes Member
ABSENT
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair
RES.#C1/11 - ELECTION OF CHAIR
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THAT David Barrow be elected as Chair for Budget/Audit Adivsory Board Meeting #1/11,
held on April 8, 2011.
CARRIED
RES.#C2/11 - MINUTES
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/10, held on April 9, 2010, respectively, be approved.
CARRIED
1
RES.#C3/11 - MINUTES
Moved by: Davy Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/10, held on September 10, 2010, respectively, be
received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, TRCA, in regard
to item BAAB7.1 - 2011 Operating and Capital Budget..
RES.#C4/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#C5/11 - 2011 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
2011 Operating and Capital Budget is recommended for approval.
Moved by: Maria Augimeri
Seconded by: Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Conservation
Authorities Act (CA Act) provides that a conservation authority, in establishing its annual
levy, shall have the power to determine the proportion of total benefit of any project
afforded to all participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, subject to such regulations under the
Conservation Authorities Act as may be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council:
(i) all participating municipalities be designated as benefiting for all projects included
in the 2011 Operating Budget;
2
(ii) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) share of the cost of the
programs included in the 2011 Operating Budget shall be raised from all
participating municipalities as part of the General Levy;
(iii) the 2011 General Levy be apportioned to the participating municipalities in the
proportion that the modified current value assessment of the whole is under the
jurisdiction of TRCA, unless otherwise provided in the levy or a project;
(iv) the appropriate TRCA officials be directed to advise the participating municipalities,
pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act and the regulations made thereunder,
and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the Total General Levy set forth in
the 2011 Operating Budget, including property tax adjustments and non-Current
Value Assessment (CVA) levy, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the
Capital Levy set forth in the 2011 Capital Budget and in the approved projects of
TRCA;
THAT, subject to finalization of the participating municipalities' apportioned levy amounts,
the 2011 Operating and Capital Budget, and all projects therein, be adopted;
THAT staff be authorized to amend the 2011 Operating and Capital Budget to reflect
actual 2011 provincial grant allocations in order to determine the amount of matching levy
governed by regulation;
THAT, except where statutory or regulatory requirements provide otherwise, staff be
authorized to enter into agreements with private sector organizations, non-governmental
organizations or government agencies for the undertaking of projects which are of benefit
to TRCA and funded by the sponsoring organization or agency;
THAT the cost of property taxes imposed by municipalities on conservation lands owned
by TRCA be charged as additional levy to the respective participating municipalities;
THAT, as required by Ontario Regulations 139/96 and 231/97, this recommendation and
the accompanying budget documents, including the schedule of matching and
non-matching levies, be approved by recorded vote;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as may be
necessary to implement the foregoing, including obtaining needed approvals and the
signing and execution of documents.
CARRIED
RATIONALE
Enclosed is the draft 2011 Budget, Operating and Capital. Staff is still "fine tuning"the budget
which may result in minor variation in the numbers after the meeting of the Budget/Audit
Advisory Board scheduled to be held on April 8, 2011. This will not materially affect the
municipal levy numbers as presented to the funding partners. The budget in final form will be
presented to the Authority at its meeting scheduled to be held on Friday, April 29, 2011.
3
Municipal Approval Status
As the members are aware, staff prepare preliminary estimates in the summer and fall of each
year for submission to TRCA's municipal funding partners. Staff meet with municipal staff as
required by the budget processes and budget schedules followed by each major participating
municipality. Presentations are made to municipal finance staff and the committees and
councils of the funding partners as required. In the case of Peel Region, TRCA works closely
with staff at Credit Valley and Halton conservation authorities to align budget information and
requirements. A similar process occurs with York Region where TRCA works closely with the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. In Durham Region, the process is more
complicated because five conservation authorities work to align budgets and financial
submissions to meet the Region of Durham budget requirements. TRCA's submissions to the
City of Toronto for capital and operating levy are reviewed with senior Corporate Finance and
Toronto Water staff.
The 2011 Preliminary Estimates were approved by the Authority in September, 2010, as the
basis for submissions to TRCA's municipal funding partners. The funding identified in the
apportionment of the levy reflects the amounts that the municipal funding partners have
approved in their 2011 budgets for capital and operating.
The following summarizes the status of the discussions and submissions as of April 1, 2011:
City of Toronto
The capital and operating funding included in the TRCA budget has been approved by City
Council.
Regional Municipality of Peel
The capital and operating funding included in the TRCA budget has been approved by
Regional Council.
Regional Municipality of York
The capital and operating funding included in the TRCA budget has been approved by
Regional Council.
Regional Municipality of Durham
The capital and operating funding included in the TRCA budget has been approved by
Regional Council.
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
The Township has been advised of TRCA's levy request. Approval of the TRCA levy is
anticipated.
Town of Mono
The Town has been advised of TRCA's levy request. Approval of the TRCA levy is anticipated.
MNR Transfer Payments
The provincial funding which is matched with levy has not been confirmed but is unlikely to
change in any material way.
4
Provincial Legislation
By regulation, TRCA has provided 30 days written notice to its member municipalities of the
date of the meeting at which the Authority will approve the municipal levy. At the April 29, 2011,
Authority meeting, a recorded vote on the budget recommendation including the non-matching
municipal levy is required. The weighted voting procedure prescribed by regulation will be
used if necessary.
Operating Budget - Overview of Key Issues
Salary/Wage Adjustment
The largest segment of the operating budget is salaries, wages and benefits, about 73% of
gross operating expenditures. The Authority was advised in September, 2010, when the
preliminary estimates were considered that staff was considering no cost of living adjustment
(COLA) in 2011. In 2010, staff received a 2% COLA adjustment. Members will recall the difficult
decision to have no COLA increase in 2009. In effect, TRCA salary and wage adjustments over
the period 2009, 2010 and 2011 will total 2%. The impact of this is that TRCA salaries are
beginning to fall behind its municipal and provincial comparators. In 2012, staff anticipate a
salary/wage (COLA) increase will be required.
Provincial budget measures in 2010 required some public agencies to "freeze" salaries and
wages for two years. Conservation authorities have been advised that they are not covered by
the proposed legislation. Although exempt from the legislation, staff believes that having no
COLA adjustment in two out of three years meets the spirit if not the regulatory requirements of
the provincial initiative. TRCA receives only $846,000 in provincial transfer payments.
Staffing
In terms of the operating budget, the number of full time equivalent positions (FTE's) will
increase by 13.1:
• Parks and Culture: net gain of 3.2 positions fully funded by revenues from operations
(reopening of Petticoat Creek pool; addition of Glen Rouge campground; reductions at
Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV); support for wedding program at Kortright Centre.
• Planning and Development Services: net gain of 5.1 positions fully funded by operating
revenues (planning positions relating to additional environmental assessment and
municipal environmental servicing plan work).
• Finance and Business Services: net gain of 0.8 positions (0.75 reduction due to retirements
and 1.7 increase with addition of office/accounting support staff).
• Restoration Services: net reduction of 0.6 positions (addition of 0.2 for planting staff and
reduction of 0.8 for maternity leave).
• Ecology: net gain of 0.5 positions (return of 2010 maternity leave).
• Watershed Management: net gain of 1.2 positions (primarily, additional program staff for
The Living City Campus at Kortright, funded by new program revenue).
• CAO/Human Resources/Communications: net gain of 2.9 positions fully funded by new
grant (addition of 2.5 positions for the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement
program full funded by provincial grant).
5
Expenditures/Operating Revenues
The 2011 operating budget has expenditures of $1.1 million more than 2010, an increase of
3.3%, and additional revenues of$0.96 million, a 4.3% increase. Increases in staffing are
funded almost entirely by new program revenue. Major areas of non-salary/wage expenditure
include additional leasing costs at Downsview Park and Earth Rangers, property taxes,
insurance, energy and fuel.
The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
In the preliminary estimates, staff reported that although The Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto (CFGT) continues to enjoy success in attracting funding and donations for
many capital projects, the portion of funding targeted to TRCA for unrestricted use in 2010 was
not achieved, due in part to the downturn in the economy. In 2011, the proposed target has
been eliminated. CFGT and TRCA staff have reviewed this and believe that because past
targets for unrestricted funding were not achieved, TRCA should not include this in its revenue
projections. CFGT will still have targets for unrestricted funding for TRCA but to be prudent in
the 2011 operating budget, these funds are not identified and if achieved will be used to help
reduce the TRCA cumulative deficit.
Deficit Management
The 2010 audited financial statements will not be available until the June meeting of the board.
The projected cumulative deficit for the end of 2010 is anticipated to be in the range of$2.5
million, a decrease of about$360,000 from end of 2009. The decrease in the deficit at the end
of 2010 relates to higher than estimated development services revenues, expenditure constraint
and receipt of some unanticipated, non-recurring revenues within the capital accounts. Of the
projected cumulative deficit totalling $2.5 million, about $110,000 relates to the remaining
financing of the Restoration Services Centre (RSC) and approximately $253,000 for the
construction of the new Petticoat Creek pool. The RSC debt will be repaid in 2011 and the
Petticoat Creek pool amount over the next several years.
In 2011, there is provision for a$300,000 surplus within the capital accounts as a result of an
opportunity to use land sale proceeds, as was done in 2010, also generating about$300,000 in
revenues. Staff is recommending the$300,000 surplus in land sale proceeds be applied to the
deficit. The 2011 operating budget, as recommended, is a balanced budget.
Municipal Funding Arrangements
Each of TRCA's participating municipalities has its own unique budget requirements and annual
budgetary pressures. TRCA has always endeavoured to meet the individual participating
municipality requirements within the context of the CA Act and TRCA's budgetary needs. In
recent years, it has become apparent that TRCA can no longer do this without changing its
funding arrangements.
TRCA directed staff to request an average 2% increase in the 2011 general levy from its
participating municipalities. The City of Toronto, after considerable negotiation agreed to a
2011 levy which is effectively flat lined at the 2010 level. The Region of York in 2011 approved
for both TRCA and LSRCA an increase of 4.5%for "total funding to conservation authorities"
including both operating and capital. The Region of Durham approved an envelope of 3%for
operating funding to the five conservation authorities. In Peel Region, the budget approval for
operating for TRCA was at the requested average of 2% plus any shift in CVA.
6
In 2011, the operating levy table identifies for the first time a column labelled "Non-CVA Levy".
Under the provisions of the Act, TRCA makes a general levy against all of its participating
municipalities to fund its general operating requirements. For York Region, within its combined
operating and capital envelope, TRCA has satisfied the capital budget approvals of the Region
and having allocated the levy funding among the participating municipalities based on the
modified CVA formula, a balance of$6,500 remains. In Durham, a similar situation has evolved
where there is a balance of$6,500. In Peel Region, the unallocated balance after CVA
adjustments and property taxes is $8,700. TRCA has identified these amounts in the table on
page 1 as "Non-CVA Levy".
The emergence of this category of funding recognizes the changing nature of TRCA's funding
arrangements with its major municipal funding partners. Increasingly, TRCA is entering into
contractual arrangements with its participating municipalities for environmental assessment
work, trail development, erosion projects etc. Property taxes require a different arrangement as
well. The traditional notion of TRCA having two sources of municipal revenue (general levy
under the modified CVA formula and capital as benefitting levy) is less valid. The Authority
recognized this in 2010 and directed staff to look at new funding arrangements. In 2011, staff
will be meeting with participating municipal officials to further consider how the funding
arrangements should evolve.
Rouge Park Levy
Under an agreement signed by TRCA, The Province of Ontario and the Rouge Park Alliance,
TRCA levies operating funds for the Rouge Park on the basis of the modified CVA formula. In
2010, total funding levied for the Rouge Park was$132,000. In 2010, the Rouge Park Alliance
approved a resolution requesting that TRCA on behalf of Rouge Park request an additional
$108,000 in general levy for the Rouge Park which would bring the total funding to$250,000.
TRCA has made this request to each of the participating municipalities. Only the City of
Toronto did not support the request for the City's share of the funding (about$72,000)
Accordingly, in the operating budget levy table on page 1, the column headed "Rouge Park"
provides for an additional $36,000 for the Rouge Park from the participating municipalities
except the City of Toronto. This funding is treated the same as "non-CVA levy" as explained
above.
Property Taxes on Conservation Lands
TRCA is required to pay property taxes on its lands. In the case of revenue producing
properties such as rental houses or leased lands, taxes are covered by the revenues received.
For park and conservation lands, taxes are payable, albeit at relatively low rates. In the City of
Toronto, park and conservation lands are exempt from property taxation because the City
(Metropolitan Toronto previously) exercised its legal ability to exempt park land from taxes. In
the regions of Peel, York and Durham, the Town of Mono and the Township of
Adjala-Tosorontio, property taxes on conservation lands are paid. In fairness to the City which
grants exemption, TRCA has long had a practice of allocating the cost of property taxes to the
jurisdiction which levies the taxes. This is in addition to the apportionment of the general levy.
7
This has been TRCA's practice for many years and the respective municipal jurisdictions have
paid the cost of the taxes. Authority to do this has been included in the budget resolution
approved each year by the Authority. For added clarity, included in the budget
recommendation this year is a formal statement of the policy.
Operating Budget Summary
Total gross operating expenditures in 2011 are estimated to be$35,136,000. This is an
increase of 3.3% over comparable 2010 budget. Revenues are budgeted to be $23,412,000, an
increase of 4.3%. 2011 net expenditures of$11,724,000 are to be funded by municipal levy.
This is an increase of$158,000 or 1.4% over 2010.
Pages 5 and 6 of the operating budget include brief notes about the reasons for
increases/decreases in the various programs. The program descriptions include additional
information.
Capital Budget Summary
Capital projects are funded by the municipal partners on a benefiting municipality basis. That
is, with few exceptions, capital projects funded by a municipality are within that municipality.
These include:
• erosion control projects;
• Remedial Action Plan program in Toronto;
• natural heritage regeneration projects in Peel and York;
• regional watershed monitoring;
• Black Creek Pioneer Village restoration program (City of Toronto);
• flood control works and flood plain mapping;
• watershed management projects;
• Peel Region Climate Change Project- Peel Region recognized in 2007 the need to make
significant investment in climate change adaptation and mitigation and this was significantly
enhanced in 2008;
• Peel conservation land care and Peel conservation area infrastructure; projects include
matching federal/provincial infrastructure funding for Heart Lake pool and Albion Hills trails.
Some capital programs are generally benefiting. These include:
• public use infrastructure - levy based on CVA, used to fund infrastructure needs of parks
and education field centres;
• information technology - levy based on CVA, used to fund common capital IT/IS needs
across the organization;
• major maintenance - levy based on CVA, used for major capital expenditures for office
buildings and accommodation;
• ground-water strategies and management - costs shared by Peel, York, Durham and the
City with some provincial support.
Certain capital programs are uniquely funded:
• land acquisition - major acquisitions leverage funding available from regions of Peel, York
and Durham, City of Toronto, local municipalities, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, CFGT
and other sources;
8
• office accommodation project: funding from all participating municipalities except the City
of Toronto was approved; the capital funds from the participating municipalities that have
approved the project are included in the TRCA capital program; these funds will not be
used without agreement of the participating municipalities;
• Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) -funded directly by TWRC through
delivery agreements, waterfront projects include Port Union, Mimico and the Lower Don
River;
• Humber Bay Shores (Etobicoke Motel Strip) - legacy project for which the City of Toronto
and Province of Ontario have continuing commitment;
• The Living City Campus at Kortright - includes a number of major projects with varying
sources of funds ie. Kortright Centre retrofit includes$1.25 million from York Region and
matching amount shared among Peel, Durham and the City of Toronto ie. Archetype
Sustainable House is fully funded by Business, Industry and Land Development Association
(BILD) and other donations;
• in 2009, the Authority approved the Petticoat Creek Pool Project of$3 million of which 2/3 is
federal/provincial infrastructure funding;
• in 2011, the City of Toronto added $5 million to TRCA capital to enable TRCA to deal with
critical erosion and flood control channel projects.
Special Project Funding:
• TRCA works with its municipal partners to undertake special projects wherein TRCA has
significant, specialized expertise. These special projects include erosion work, construction
of trails, bridges and wetlands and tree planting. This funding varies from year to year and
is completely separate from the municipal operating and capital levy funding. Funding for
this category of work is included in the budget only if there is a signed agreement.
Capital expenditures can vary significantly from year to year as funding is made available. The
budget provides for continuing commitment to capital projects under existing categories. Staff
has included the municipal project funding for 2011 in the attached table. This funding reflects
the approvals of the funding partners for 2011 but does not include funding from other sources
such as Waterfront Toronto nor does it include funding carried forward from prior years or from
reserves. Staff is still finalizing the details of the capital budget and will have a complete
summary for the April 29th meeting of the Authority.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
At the Budget and Audit Advisory Board meeting, staff will do a presentation summarizing the
2010 operating and capital budgets.
Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, 416-661-6292; Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232
Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca; rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Jim Dillane, 416-661-6292; Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232
Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca; rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca
Date: April 4, 2011
Attachments: 1
9
Attachment 1
AND REGION-Y-
ervation
for The Living City
2011 BUDGET
OPERATING AND CAPITAL
As submitted to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board, April 8, 2011
10
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages
Section 1: Apportionment of Levy
2011 Apportionment of Levy-Summary 1
2011 Apportionment of Levy- Matching/Non-Matching Format 2
Basis of Apportionment- Municipal Levy 2011 3-4
Section 2: Operating Budget
Operating Budget Summary 5-6
Full -Time Equivalents of Staffing 7
2011 Operating Budget- Detailed 8-26
Finance and Business Services 8
Watershed Management 12
Planning and Development 15
Ecology 17
Restoration Services 19
Parks and Culture 20
Office of the CAO, Human Resources, Marketing and Communication 26
Section 3: Capital Budget
2011 approved Capital Funding from TRCA Municipal Partners 27
11
SECTION 1
2011 APPORTIONMENT OF LEVY
12
T O O O O O O O O
N Cl) r r r O N f- f-
0) N O O 00 1 Cl) Cl)
IL c O O W N M T T
}�-
00
L (a
r O r- O N O O
O V v (D ° r 0 00 00
of o C C
Cl) Cl) 00 LO LO
T T
I,. LO N W P - P- O O
z OD ' (O ' ' O M O O
0 H * P�: W T N m m
0
N W
M C C q q
LU J f� r N r r
O T T
W
J 0, h- m N G 11) 0 G
LU w T r ' Q? ' T ' N ' N D D
LU =l) Q N
(fY � G00
0 0
LL r r
H
=Q m
Z 0
O Z a°'a c°� m c°h aro 0 0 0 0
W n
LU
a w r T N
Z 0 c;
O r
r
Z
U N > (OOQ o (OOH 0 0
O v � (D 00
z' J N N
w 0 o LU
CC F J z
0 Z �
Q LV
O O O O O 0 0 O Z 000 0 0 0C w (0 Cl) N (0 ce) 0 0
Z � -7 -7 06 06
Q � U3 0 I 0 00 0
Z p r Q
O C o
O O N
a z r C 0 N N Oo N r N
Q L Q U3 N 000 O ((O 0) 0)
' J U N 07 Ch N N N
V W N
~ r T r r
J
O Q N
H W Y
Z 0- CO
O CO
O
N Q o°[
_ U)
a z z
Q = O O Y }0
0 O w O } axi It
Q 0 0 r2 d >- J
13
N
N
0)
R
a
N O O 00 O T O
r- co A O T T C7 V
I� O T It N
qT CO qT qT r-
T (V r
T
J
H �
0
i
rLT �
i
O '
N O O O It O
F— co O Ln NIt 0
T ( µ C J C
Q J Z It 00 CO CV 00
Z Cl) a _ (4 T CV O
W z0 T
0 Ha
w rms
Q w I
J
_ Z
r 0 Z
�
N
z LL
V F- (4 (4 CV I- 00 00 O
Z T LO It (4 O
OW CV LO O (4 It
_ 2 � `� T 0)
0 z z s
Z 70
LU 0 Va
H H
Z O
U
Qa o
pa Q
H Q o
z cn
O (u
oC E
O cn
H o_ (u
i
Z (o
0 C:C
cc C
0
c Q
J = Z 0 Y a)0 Z J U LU cc
cc cc
0
a o � � a 0 m
4
Page 3
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT- MUNICIPAL LEVY
(BASED ON 2010 MODIFIED CURRENT VALUE ASSESSMENT FIGURES*)
%OF CURRENT
CURRENT MUNICIP- VALUE POPULATION
VALUE ALITY IN ASSESSMENT TOTAL IN
MUNICIPALITY ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY IN WATERSHED POPULATION AUTHORITY
$(000's) $(000's)
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 1,606,261 4 64,250 9,840 394
Durham, Regional Municipality of 30,173,863 * 24,770,113 198,960 165,721
City of Toronto 544,792,222 100 544,792,222 2,115,627 2,115,627
Town of Mono 1,471,322 5 73,566 6,885 344
Peel, Regional Municipality of 220,353,640 * 95,945,137 1,024,811 463,691
York, Regional Municipality of 183,024,241 * 167,003,022 722,066 651,136
981,421,550 832,648,310 4,078,189 3,396,913
ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES
Durham, Regional Municipality of
Ajax, Town of 12,951,191 86 11,138,025 94,907 81,620
Pickering,Town of 13,631,290 95 12,949,726 84,646 80,414
Uxbridge Township 3,591,382 19 682,363 19,407 3,687
30,173,863 24,770,113 198,960 165,721
Peel, Regional Municipality of -
Brampton, City 68,542,666 63 43,181,879 379,473 239,068
Mississauga, City of 139,694,447 33 46,099,167 592,333 195,470
Caledon,Town of 12,116,528 55 6,664,090 53,005 29,153
220,353,640 95,945,137 1,024,811 463,691
York, Regional Municipality of -
Aurora,Town of 9,659,991 4 386,400 44,554 1,782
Markham,Town of 57,189,722 100 57,189,722 242,442 242,442
Richmond Hill, Town of 35,232,224 99 34,879,902 149,873 148,374
Vaughan,Town of 69,562,924 100 69,562,924 237,781 237,781
Wh itch urch-Stouffvil le,Town of 6,832,318 43 2,937,897 29,012 12,475
King Township 4,547,062 45 2,046,178 18,404 8,282
183,024,241 167,003,022 722,066 651,136
*As provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources - -
15
Page 4
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 LEVY APPORTIONMENT
MODIFIED 2011 GENERAL 2010 GENERAL
CURRENT VALUE LEVY LEVY
MUNICIPALITY ASSESSMENT PROPORTIONATE PROPORTIONATE
IN WATERSHED FACTOR FACTOR
$(000's)
ADJALA-TOSORONTIO 64,250 0.00772% 0.00779%
DURHAM, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
Ajax 11,138,025
Pickering 12,949,726
Uxbridge 682,363
24,770,113 2.97486% 2.98520%
CITY OF TORONTO 544,792,222 65.42885% 65.83327%
TOWN OF MONO 73,566 0.00884% 0.00883%
PEEL, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
Brampton 43,181,879
Mississauga 46,099,167
Caledon 6,664,090
95,945,137 11.52289% 11.48584%
YORK, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
Aurora 386,400
Markham 57,189,722
Richmond 34,879,902
Vaughan 69,562,924
Whitchurch- Stouffville 2,937,897
King 2,046,178
167,003,022 20.05685% 19.67907%
832,648,310 100.00000% 100.00000%
16
SECTION 2
2011 OPERATING BUDGET
17
a- v
° E w ° m v o °
o m v
v v m $
E 0 p 5 °
m o p
° o
O N� U v �L w ma O C� N
O O a_
g p
N U)
•�N
C7
s Q fl- v °1 N�_
42 0 m
m m x - v -
E O Y 3 N m
00 m N O N
a _ N O O) N m O m
m O
O O N -O
a 0 L U0N R N �O -Q O 3 N C m N v C D Q N a i L O tC 6
1'
o v y 4 p s s 0
N LL s o ZN O m
Z 0 m
>C
.N N O a O O
O O E O S r m N
N O O
O W -N
S O W
O 0 > X N w
O O a v v N o v U o m m
> N 6 N>
>m O
w ° °O O O N
N
rN e - o 1 v v s•--v C,-o v 6
O
° O w N m . E m p ° E =
U 7
° m v v m ° N
O • °
> U v Z6 a°
w s o m
a m
W ° ° o m °E O N
O > N N U N C N° o p
o o � N L o o o E
v C
U d m t E v o v W J ° v °' °- `� ° v m v
v v ° v o v o a x m v o s
° o o >` w m ° v m °- E v ° > v °- = E oy
m g m m E O v Q v v °
0 o =° °-°- m E °a� o v °� o o� °' ° O w > ° m m
`m
E o o E o ° o w v v m E o Q E E
d 5 3 y � a o_o O v U y°-° °1 m m p v E a
a°1z E -° 3 � p�W ° v v v o_o ° op w
0 N x v ° v E N ° m j s ° 2 v O - v ° N p
ai o v s O ° v ° > 0 0 o U o p N 0 0 a v m m LL
y �°m v E o o `m v U E a� m`o `°
E m
O
�� ° O
Q N +un x d m in F ins Q o z °cn z Q d¢ d ¢ �w m 2o U z in
CD
L
Z Y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 06 O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O V O N O (O O O O (O (O O O O m O O O m O O O O O O N
T (� m N V h h N h N O O a N N m N N 7- O V 2(� (O Oj
r V V N V N m N N N m N N m N m V V" ( M
/ W
�W/ ae 0 ae 0 ae — 0 N N 0 N ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae N N ae ae ae o
� O O m N N 0 N N N N N r V V h O (9 N h V (? N N 9 a N (h
V/ r V N V N O N (� V (� O (� (� V h m N (O V O O O N O 0 O (h
Z o
O m
U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O
Z m N V N O V O O N N (O m (O V N N(O a- m
O
m N
O N N V m -0 O N O
N N N N N (� V N N (� V (o uj
/W 0 m
li a
Q Q N Q N N a N N N (N� O m N N O N N V N O N
LL O O O O (2 O O O a N r N N N O N (� N N V N N h(� N N h N 0 r V N o N N a((o� N R
N N N O O N O O (N)
N O N N O N N N N N N h o m pj
Z O N N O O O N O N O N N N O O 2 N (O
(p M O
O a
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O
Z O O O O (O O N O V O O O V V O O O h O O O h O O 00 O O N
(O m N r r m N N N a r O O O V V V O m O h h m N O N (p"
O O O (O h N N h (O N N N h (� O O N N (� h V h m N (� N (� N a
O N (O N V N N N V V N O V V (� N N V (� N N N V V (� V N p
M N
O m (O
r
O O N (2 M� CO m� O N O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N
O
O d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
G
o _
N
>
E G E
R p G
0 N O E C O C
m N
U ,> •> G O O
N
N �[ E ° a v E v N > N p LL > > E m m
i C O
-LL 6 O
O O N m m O v O m N m Z (0
E p Q N° o ww
WT v a ° o U v - Q 9
L.> O °N > U > LL N m y
0 s U m
� E a� > v v v °U v r G i i Q o U D �Lu.O 0 N N D O E O a G O a a
O W O 0
C LL m C O
LL U U ED U U I 8w N
9 e r O 6
W
U (6
a n 0 O
.0 C
C • �
0 N 6 O
O E O U
Q Q N
rn Y -_ �
O O
O O 3 CC
xO a) a
O a) 0 >
N U O O �
CO 0 O O a) LL
_
c U >
a) ¢ 00 >
C O N CC
o O O O U
O U Y
V O O
0 rn rn O
(O p C O a) O iT
.N !Z O O O xN
R N U a) -6 a) ° to 3 y6
�° > °N
° a ` o
0 E a) 0 — ¢p N 0
--c N O Y O E 2'm W O °
0°-
N a) - O t6 O N a)
° o T Jm 3 o ° o 0 0
o a N ° Y a)o o m m
t ° .o a = a ° o a N m T a a
a E N O x a) E � a m rn N axi axi
0
0
0 — W C
a
° O O t6 O O _0 U a)
D a) Z O O 0 W Lm U L W
0 p O C N ~ ~> O -O C
p (6 O O O O O O a) -tO C Lm U L LU W 2 a Y a) E
v v C, m a > a o o °) oN 0 0
> m 0 o 0 x U U O U) `o
Q 0 = 2 > (6 11 (n -0 d W c W LL W (n CC d LL LL N U) (n
Z O O o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0000 o o 00 0 0 0 0 0 o m cO
O
C) 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 00 O O O O O O N M
O O O O O O O O (7 O V N LO O V O O O O LO O O O O r
(O O Cl m (O m (O N Cl) m r� LO O r� V Vr� O O e OD
L U In (O O V V N O N Cl) Cl) O N O LO
r> LL r r
LLJ ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W CO O V co co O O m V co Lo - Lo (O Lo O N V O O (h V V n n
U�/)� C L N O � (7 (7 Lo (O m O (7 O a r m (O N m � O R r r V - CO
V/ (Q (� (o r C? N O (O N C? O
Z E �o
V N
W 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 00 O O O O O O CO CO
O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 00 O O O O 0
O_ O O O O O O O O O O (O O O O O 00 (O O O O O o r- Go
Z d O N Lo m (O r- O co O () (O (O V (o (O (O N jr ; N M
O O t O (o (o N LO r- (O (o � O N (o 0) In co (o co V N N
0 p EA V (7 - m LO co LO O N co (O - r-- N V r co n r--
•(Q N N N (o (7 - r r r
N
W Q-
O V m V O co N O LO r rn m Lo O (o co � CO N In n
(Q I� (O O (O � N N (O � co N � (O LO () () N () N C-4
(D CO
0 C_ O RI (h O V O m V I� N LO � LO m V 0 (o O 1-1 0 0) T
Z 7 0 co r CO m CO CO N CO 0 m O � (o O V Lo oo � N
LL O V 0) (O V (o N In (O 0 N CO CO m CO V N CO V to 0 (� (O
Q N V V N m I-1 (o N m T V Co r V m T (O r V V (O CD n LO N
N
T Q Cl) - N
T N
O N O O O O O O O O O O o o 0 o o o 00 O 00 O O O O m O O
O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 00 O 00 O O 0
Z O O O O O O O r- O v o O O (O O O 00 O 00 w O 0 C) Lo n
O O d Lo O Lo V (7 O (7 O m O (O O () m O Lo Co N O(O p (p (O N M
r V (O O (O (7 (O (O m CO In O CO O (O O (O (O m In V O O (O
0 0 L fl C) N Cl m r N N m N_ O LO r V V T m V N N O v LO LO
LO N m N N Cl) r Cl) N r
r
N
!Z
Y
On O
O � �
iT O
o E U
W
0 0 E n U o
n (o a) O
.� � � � 0 � 0 �
2 > n O d a o a0
>' v rn U `p U rn o rn E O N
C\j n ;> U ° a E rn ° m o E
N O ) m N
d U O N U to ¢ C U c (E6 0) °) Y to N E ID
U c O O U O O LL
N 7 N LL a) E .0 i6 U U d O E .Y
w o m d ° a m U 3 i � p o J > > Z
fn in U U O a) iT a) J t O N >_ c s= V LL
E v o ° r O ` '� o— o o
0 m O a) a) o o m O w — — c x x c_
[C m LL 0 CE U Y O U Z Q N C~7 > C~7 > > w w .� °
LL -
LL LL dZ L0 z Ud 2 z z y 19
a) '0 (D M Q N N }
C
N N N -D N O + t r w W N
t 7 (� N O Q + LL N } LL N(�
U U) E � a) t d - a) a) a) 2
.. c aro 0) Q m NW
m t o m _0 c
c10 W � + V; < Ct U iaU Q -C
'0 t .- Z m Y N CO N _ w U Y N N C U
Q U M O N N LL O co N O N w
N W U a) a N N � O + E 'N (L d
o U E Z d u d ° Z + d
J m 0 a) C W n a) 'V U a) CL
LO -0
N ) D)U 01 + , U N q W + �d co t
> W N U N f U t N + Q + U CES
O (C t Q ° S C N LL C Z C
N EULLUww o w 0 O p m0U N a)
H W U a) N W N
E � W NW � w � ° LL H ° a C 'NH 3 0) aa)i CIS cis N N LL C O -0 0) > O Y R Q LL Z � Z N
(� U) N O M U >.E LO CIS� U r u � 'E E � a C
CIS
a
n 0 O :N N W �.v s N OLL '� + EO � _IL
� �� E
° ° °� z ° o
a) N p Q (� Z O t C N O 01 U H (C
d N C N O + W H F O E N '(? E U O a)
N '0 C N Q N N y LL 2 J Y U 0) N w O 0) ')a) LL CIS
_ C N
° N a) Z ° U 0 0 c a) M a) 0) N 7 w U -0 N U W LL
N LL S CIS O LL1 C N O N O- '0 H Y � C N L~L 'N c's O O -0 O N C i N + N � _° ± O a) 2 0 U V
cis LO
O mn O i R r U) 0 4 7) > w E R t N O } O O
2 N N p V a) t p p N E p W LL d
Q o d > N d ` Q OC n + E s
N — O O O? N > C O 0) N a) n N N Q O)
° m E ° v m U + r m 0) ° r oC N U N
QO 17 .(!) C O C W d c M O a) O C 0- R r O U 'O C N
_ O C N O t Z O 0) Q N Q N O a) O a) N
N w + Q 'N a°) `� a 3 a) m U E o U c ° a) CIS m
Z W W H a) p N H } a) t U) U W T N N R LL a) m N
0 z LL 0)w a � - E N Z ^ U oC o Z .� S 13 � o o �
T -r O 0) � N iC 0)a + + w d + IL U a) Z U fl N +
r N U E (° N U N C N N Q N O N 7 O N LL °_ fl
U) � � w M r- U) o - 0) 0) (% a 1) � 0)+ o O ° o 5)C's(Ca E LL 2 N m U i m m N m e 9 + m �° m
d + O W N N N U a) U CIS
W C w o op mQ ww 'E w w o we i° w of 3 -0 w
N Q LL �! Q U 7 p N Q w a L~L L~L ajf L~L L~L Q l~L U (n Z U C + LL
co M N W r 0 N (O ^ r M 7 LO
Z W O (O co N M O N O 0 M r (p N
U
M N N r h h co (° h N N co
Z � N r T 7 M W r M r 0 0 ui 0 N
O p M N LO
c LL 041
(� W J r
W n O Co. O O) O O) W M M co a0
Q NI M r LO
Z3
QU- N 00 00 N O M O N 00 7 r
O M V) m N (O 7 N r N r 7 r
M N N N O
N
Z R L N
a
0 R °
O d) ^ cq LO M N O N ^ M co
LL U I N co W co M N 0 Ln N O ) N W O
0) °) : N M LO N M (Q O 7 00 r
W �I N 7 M LO ro 7 7 LO M N co
r2 N N co
H
J n 7 .
J O -11 O M
N O C; M N r 7 O M M LL T O
LO
N I n
N N
m m
U U
U1 E N U) E N
N Z R O N O Z a>
7 R 0 U) 3 U It R U) Q LL
m w c U a) w m c
dim L f v at c o , at R_ df t O m a
o o a U Q F
UQ H J)
O O
ay
U) a
Lp � Y ca*6 1 E O N L zw a a ¢ a i ¢
a O
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 8
ACTIVITY: Administration
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Financial Services 1,172,000 1,188,227 1,240,000 5.8% 68,000
Off ice Services 1,366,000 1,415,672 1,460,000 6.9% 94,000
Information Technology 710,000 690,186 718,000 1.1% 8,000
GIs 478,000 454,347 520,000 8.8% 42,000
Project Surcharge (1,710,000) (1,687,167) (1,879,000) 9.9% (169,000)
Expenditure Total 2,016,000 2,061,265 2,059,000 32.5% 43,000
Funding Sources:
Program/User fees 59,000 76,773 55,000 -6.8% (4,000)
Reserves -
Interest Earnings 260,000 298,153 340,000 30.8% 80,000
CFGT-Flowthrough -
Municipal
Provincial 5,000
Federal 5,000
Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants 190,000 213,420 115,000 -39.5% (75,000)
Revenue Total 509,000 598,346 510,000 -15.5% 1,000
Net Expenditures 1,507,000 1,462,919 1,549,000 48.0% 42,000
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 33.6 33.9 0.8% 0.3
Non-F/T 0.5 2.2 340.6% 1.7
Facilities: #Buildings 4.0 4 5.0 25.0% 1.0
Sq. Footage 44,750 44,750 46,950 4.9% 2,200.0
$/Sq. Footage 16.1 16 17.0 5.5% 0.9
•Purchase Card Transactions 13,000 12,125 13,000
•Supplier Invoices processed 16,000 15,888 16,500 3.1% 500
•Paycheques issued 17,800 18,278 18,800 5.6% 1,000
•Phones&Computers 1,310 1,301 1,310
•GIS jobs for clients 850 841 850
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
+2 FTEs staff in Finance and Print room ($51,000). Downsview rent/hydro up.
More projects underway increases Project Surcharge.
New Earth Rangers office lease plus line charges at$60,000.
PST Rebates$75,000 lower as the program winds down.
Interest up$70,000 due to higher rates.
FTE Change:+2 NEW Office Assistants
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Additional staff in P/R+ Finance-$66,000
Interest over budget by approx$45,000 due to higher rates
PST rebates in excess of budget by$22,000
21
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 9
ACTIVITY: Rental Properties
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Basic Rentals 531,000 550,086 537,000 1.1% 6,000
ORC Rentals 855,000 902,270 864,000 1.1% 9,000
Special Agreements 103,000 225,263 142,000 37.9% 39,000
Central Services 380,000 405,190 345,000 -9.2% (35,000)
Expenditure Total 1,869,000 2,082,809 1,888,000 1.0% 19,000
Funding Sources:
Basic Rentals 784,000 797,539 790,000 0.8% 6,000
ORC Rentals 950,000 928,457 960,000 1.1% 10,000
Special Agreements 611,000 720,382 651,000 6.5% 40,000
Program/User fees totals 2,345,000 2,446,377 2,401,000 2.4% 56,000
Reserves
CFGT- Living City
CFGT- Flowthrough
Municipal 29,435
Provincial
Federal
Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants
Revenue total 2,345,000 2,475,812 2,401,000 2.4% 56,000
Net Expenditures (476,000) (393,003) (513,000) 7.8% (37,000)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time 5.7 5.8 1.8% 0.1
Non-F/T 1.0 -100.0% (1.0)
Facilities: # Buildings Rented 126 126 132 4.8% 6
Occupancy% 95% 95% 95%
#acres Land under lease 2,600 2,600 2,500 -3.8% (100)
Operations: Days of 365 365 365
Cost/Rentals $ 11,000 $ 11,527 $ 10,614 -3.5% $ (386)
Revenue/Rental 13,762 $ 13,698 $ 13,258 -3.7% $ (504)
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Higher WWK taxes related to the dome.
Higher WWK revenue projected
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Higher WWK taxes related to the dome.
Higher WWK revenue projected
22
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 10
ACTIVITY: Property& Taxes
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Property Services 961,000 999,685 952,000 -0.9% (9,000)
Conservation Lands- Insurance 216,000 217,166 239,000 10.6% 23,000
-Recoverable Taxes 342,000 361,814 409,000 19.6% 67,000
Expenditure Total 1,672,000 1,738,273 1,754,000 4.9% 82,000
Funding Sources:
Program/User fees - -
Reserves
CFGT-Living City - -
CFGT-Flowthrough 70,000 110,677 133,000 90.0% 63,000
Municipal - -
Provincial
Federal
Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants 30,000 37,760 20,000 -33.3% (10,000)
Revenue Total 100,000 148,437 153,000 53.0% 53,000
Net Expenditures 1,572,000 1,589,836 1,601,000 1.8% 29,000
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 10.9 10.66788 -1.7% (0.2)
Non-F/T 1.4 1.30096 -8.4% (0.1)
#ACRES Land in ownership 41,300 41,424 42,400 2.7% 1,100
Cost/acre in ownership $ 40.48 $ 41.96 $ 41.37 2.2% $ 0.88
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Property tax increase projected plus additional taxes for properties acquired in 2011.
Insurance budget increased to cover anticipated insurance premium increase
Additional Foundation revenue from the Sauriol Dinner
FTE Change: -.2 retirement
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
23
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 11
ACTIVITY: Vehicle & Equipment
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Fuel, Maintenance&Repairs 676,000 714,141 698,000 3.3% 22,000
Vehicle Purchases-New -
Vehicle Purchases 301,000 316,873 300,000 -0.3% (1,000)
Equipment Purchases-New 228,000 394,663 195,000 -14.5% (33,000)
Equipment Disposal Proceeds (15,000) (15,000)
Internal Recoveries (1,190,000) (1,280,096) (1,178,000) -1.0% 12,000
Expenditure Total 145,580
Funding Sources:
Program/User fees
Reserves see above
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough
Municipal
Provincial
Federal
Donations/Fundraising
Private
Revenue Total
Net Expenditures 145,580 -
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.8 0.6 -22.0% -0.2
Non-F/T
No.of vehicles 65 65
#of kms driven 975,000 975,000
Number of pieces of equipment 230 230
#hours equipment used 230,000 230,000
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COL
Less equipment acquisition projected
FBS FTE Change:-.2 retirementCA's:no changeNo change
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Some extra equipment required
24
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 12
ACTIVITY: WM Divisional Management
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. $Chg.
Expenditures:
Divisional Management 390,600 307,001 421,000 8% 30,400
Downsview Offices-Corporate 33,000 28,899 10,000 -70% (23,000)
2011 Moved From Ecology:Sustainable
Man System 64,000 64,000
Expenditure Total 487,600 335,900 495,000 2% 7,400
Funding Sources:
Program/User fees 86 -
Reserves
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough 3,000
Municipal -
Provincial 10,000 17,500 12,000 20% 2,000
Federal 10,000 17,500 12,000 20% 2,000
Donations/Fundraising -
Non-Government Grants -
Revenue Total 20,000 38,086 24,000 20% 4,000
Net Expenditures 467,600 297,814 471,000 1% 3,400
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 4.2 80 4.0 -6% -0.3
Non-F/T -
Total Divisional Employees managed 68.0 70 75.0 10% 7
#of different departments at Downsview 12.0 12.00 12.0
#meeting rooms 3 3 3
$serviced ($millions) by Budgeting/accoL 25 25 25
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Reallocating of Director's salary. Reduction of part-time staff.
Sustainable Management System moved here from Ecology.
Admin FTE Change:+.1 more Director here and-.2 seconded staff moved
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Reductions to offset other operating pressures
25
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 13
ACTIVITY: Watershed Strategies
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. $Chg.
Expenditures:
Don River 183,000 213,155 209,000 14.2% 26,000
Humber River 203,000 190,500 203,000
Rouge River 475,000 425,000 425,000 -10.5% (50,000)
Highland Creek 51,000 60,923 114,000 123.5% 63,000
Etobicoke-Mimico Creek 199,000 198,173 199,000
Duff ins Creek 249,000 244,355 222,000 -10.8% (27,000)
Oak Ridges Moraine 155,000 126,380 127,000 -18.1% (28,000)
Waterfront Strategy 79,000 67,180 81,000 2.5% 2,000
Portion funded from Capital (15,000) (15,000) -100.0% 15,000
Expenditure Total 1,579,000 1,510,666 1,580,000 0.1% 1,000
Funding Sources:
Program/User fees 2,519 -
Reserves
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough 85,006 85,000 85,000
Other- Municipal
Other- Provincial 55,000 40,000 40,000 -27.3% (15,000)
Other- Federal 40,000 40,801 40,000
Other- Donations/Fundraising 475,000 425,000 425,000 -10.5% (50,000)
Non-Government Grants 50,000 33,739 44,000 -12.0% (6,000)
Revenue Total 620,000 627,065 634,000 2.3% 14,000
Net Expenditures 959,000 883,601 946,000 -1.4% (13,000)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time 8.6 9.3 8.9% 0.8
Non-F/T 0.6 - 0.3 -46.8% (0.3)
•public meetings hosted 5 8 8 60.0% 3
•stakeholder/advisory meetings 24 91 111 362.5% 87
•public events hosted 27 64 87 222% 60
•technical studies 7 12 11 57.1% 4
•plans implemented 4 16 18 350.0% 14
•advisory members engaged 150 145 163 8.7% 13
•of projects underway 14 40 45 221.4% 31
•participants at public events 3,760 6,747 7,152 90.2% 3,392
•ha restored 51,500 60,945 51,500
•training days 6 40 55 816.7% 49
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Trillium Foundation grant funding for extra Highland staff net of staff shifted to other programs.
Rouge Park donation revenue projected lower.
Strats FTE Change: +1.3 NEW Highland&Don Proj.Managers net of.9 shifts out to other programs DSS FTE Change:+.4 new ORM Planner
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Reduced Spending to address corporate operations issues. Raised Funds to offset projects
26
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 13b
ACTIVITY: NEW:Living City Campus Programming
2010 2010 2011
BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
Administration 83,000 See KCC for 2010 48,000 -42.2% (35,000)
Marketing-General 11,600 11,000 -5.2% (600)
Marketing-Education 3,000 3,000
Education Programs 359,800 408,000 13.4% 48,200
Sustainable House Programming -
Maple Syrup Education 49,400 64,000 29.6% 14,600
Energy Workshops 23,000 122,000 430.4% 99,000
Day Camps 34,000 35,000 2.9% 1,000
Expenditure Tota 563,800 691,000 22.6% 127,200
FUNDING SOURCES:
User fees- Education Programs 329,500 345,000 0.047041 15500
User fees-Sustainable House 33,000 33,000
User fees- Maple Syrup 67,300 69,000 2.5% 1,700
User fees- Energy Workshops 71,000 181,000 154.9% 110,000
User fees- Day Camps 50,000 50,000
User fees- -
Program/User fees Total 550,800 678,000 23.1% 127,200
Reserves -
Interest Earnings
CFGT-Flowthrough
Other- Municipal
Other- Provincial
Other- Federal
Other- Donations/Fundraising
Other- Non-Government Grants
Revenue Total 550,800 678,000 23.1% 127,200
Deficit/(Surplus 13,000 13,000
NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on
Staff FTEs-Full-time 2.7 3.9 45.3% 1.2
Non-F/T 6.5 6.5
•workshops hosted 22 18 22
•students involved 32,400 27,000 32,400
•restoration sites 20 17 20
•brochures and advertisements 12,000 10,000 12,000
•Citizenship ceremonies hosted 2 2 2
•people involved in ceremonies 1,440 1,200 1,440
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Expanded Energy Skills Training Program funded by user fees.
LCC FTE Change:+1 Sust Ed Coord,+.3 more Ed Assistant charged here than in 2010 KCC
Separate new program created from education items formerly in KCC.
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
27
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 14
ACTIVITY: Conservation Field Centres
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
CFC Program Management 169,000 130,472 177,000 4.7% 8,000
Education Support Services 223,000 237,242 230,000 3.1% 7,000
Mar.3/08 capital moved to own page
Albion Hills 731,000 607,563 768,000 5.1% 37,000
Claremont 741,000 699,918 775,000 4.6% 34,000
Lake St.George 968,000 928,832 994,000 2.7% 26,000
Education Special Projects 20,000 50,225 -100.0% (20,000)
Food Equipment 4,017
Internal
Expenditure Total 2,852,000 2,658,270 2,944,000 3.2% 92,000
Funding Sources:
User Fees-Albion Hills 485,000 326,505 546,000 12.6% 61,000
Claremont 532,400 378,551 479,000 -10.0% (53,400)
Lake St. George 822,000 651,517 805,000 -2.1% (17,000)
All other 11,701
Program/User fees total 1,839,400 1,368,275 1,830,000 -0.5% (9,400)
Reserves
Interest Earnings -
CFGT-Flowthrough 330,600 483,097 438,000 32.5% 107,400
Municipal 5,000 14,399 5,000
Provincial 300 -
Federal
Donations/Fundraising 2,956
Non-Government Grants 2,000 -
Revenue Total 2,175,000 1,871,027 2,273,000 4.5% 98,000
Net Expenditures 677,000 787,243 671,000 -0.9% (6,000)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 25.7 25.6 -0.2% -0.1
Non-F/T 9.9 9.8 -1.3% -0.1
Facilities:#Buildings 20 20 20
Sq. Footage 23,713 23,713 23,713
Number of Days Booked (includes weekends and summer and 651 574 659 1.2% 8
Number of Student Participants 7,407 8,200
Number of Student Days Booked(Average 34.3 students/day) 22,329 19,695 22,604 1.2% 274
Number of Teacher P. D. Participants(External) 1,920
Number of Teacher P. D. Sessions(Internal) 790
Cost/Student Day $ 127.72 $ 134.97 $ 130.24 2.0% $ 2.52
Revenue/Student Day $ 82.38 $ 69.47 $ 80.96 -1.7% $ (1.42)
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Reinstated major maintenance funds-$45k(was cut in 2010 to offset revenue shortfalls)
Increased CFGT Flow Through funding-Weston FDN, McCutcheon FDN
Increase of days of sale from 491 to 506 for school bookings-economic recovery
TTP Bird Program(Winged Migration)was in budget twice.$5k impact of removing duplicate
Monarch Teacher Network-$5k revenue
FTE Change:small reduction in Dorm staff, unfilled Manager position converted to a NEW sales position
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Reduced revenue but somewhat offset through expense savings
VARIANCE NOTE:TCDSB cancelled bookings at Claremont and Albion Hills-80 days for Sept 2009 to June 2010
VARIANCE NOTE: Economy and funding impacting participation in field trips and smaller groups
28
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET-FINAL
DIVISION: Planning&Development Page 15
ACTIVITY: Development Services
2010 2010 2011
Budaet Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Planning Services 916,000 853,067 1,056,000 15.3% 140,000
Planning Services-MESPs
Regulation Services 802,000 797,651 906,000 13.0% 104,000
Solicitor Realty Inquiries -
Policy,Research and Special Projects 15,000 13,700 15,000
Hearings 125,000 59,807 125,000
Environ.Assess ments-Core 497,000 482,798 494,000 -0.6% (3,000)
York EA 606,000 542,372 565,000 -6.8% (41,000)
York Durham Sewer 69,000 14,955 36,000 -47.8% (33,000)
Central Pickering DP EA 117,000 117,000
TTC-Spadina Subway EA 165,607 191,000 - 191,000
Expenditure Total 3,458,000 3,360,133 3,930,000 13.6% 472,000
Funding Sources: -
Fees-Planning 1,514,000 1,428,415 1,544,000 2.0% 30,000
Fees-Planning MESPs 100,000 223,960 250,000 150.0% 150,000
Fees-Regulation Services 884,000 986,505 973,000 10.1% 89,000
Fees-Solicitor 153,000 213,830 156,000 2.0% 3,000
Fees: Core E.A. 458,000 323,106 468,000 2.2% 10,000
York EA 12,000 60,830 12,000
Peel EA 8,000 88,270 8,000
Brampton EA 4,000 14,560 4,000
Central Pickering DP EA
TTC-Spadina Subway EA 2,448 124,000
Fees-Other(i.e.York Sewer)
Contract Services 6,850
Program/User fees total 3,133,000 3,348,774 3,539,000 13.0% 406,000
Reserves -
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough -
Municipal 1,079,000 1,115,381 1,186,000 15.7% 107,000
Provincial -
Federal
Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants -
Peel E.A.via Cap Levy 280,000 280,000 290,000 3.6% 10,000
Revenue Total 4,212,000 4,464,155 4,725,000 12.2% 513,000
Net Expenditures (754,000) (1,104,022) (795,000) 5.4L.___±41,000
IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 34.00 36.92 8.6% 2.9
Non-F/T 2.15 4.32 101.2% 2.2
Mandated Activity: - Conservation Authorities Act,Planning Act,Environmental Assessment Act
•New Planning Applications processed 550 772 750 36.4% 200
•carry forward Planning Applications - 308 300 - 300
•New Development Permit Applications received/processed 1,000 1,062 1,020 2.0% 20
•carry forward Development Permit Applications - 212 204 - 204
•Development Permits Issued 850 1,026 1,025 20.6% 175
•Permissions for Minor Works Issued 225 278 280 24.4% 55
#Environment Assessments 75 115 125 66.7% 50
•Environment Master Plan Studies - 1 3 - 3
•Permissions for Routine Infrastructure 60 110 120 100.0% 60
•Solicitor/Realty Enquiries 550 835 835 51.8% 285
•Concept Development Inquiries 130 159 150 15.4% 20
•Active OMB/Mining&Lands Commissioner Hearings 10 12 15 50.0% 5
•Active Env.Tribunal Hearings - - 1 - 1
•Master Environmental Servicing Plans(Current) 1 3 3
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Increased planning fee,permit and solicitor realtor revenues by 2%and additional$100K permit revenues
MESP net expenditures increased by$150K
New revenue from negotiated EA service agreements will cover staff charged for specialized expedited review
DSS FTE Change:+2 NEW Planners,EAs+1 NEW Clerk+1.8 higher planner allocation,+.4 NEW YDDS planner=5.2
Ecology portion FTE Change:+.2 more staff here for new EAs
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Net expenditures were better than budget
Permit revenues were higher than budget
Higher expenditures in York Eas but recoverable from York Region revenues
Lower expenditures in OMB hearings and special project accounts
Higher MESP contributions than budget
29
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Planning & Development Page 16
ACTIVITY: Enforcement
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget % Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Enforcement 544,000 532,301 543,000 -0.2% (1,000)
Legal 35,000 41,771 35,000
Expenditure Total 579,000 574,072 578,000 -0.2% (1,000)
Funding Sources:
Program/User fees
Reserves
CFGT- Living City
CFGT- Flowthrough
Municipal
Provincial
Federal
Donations/Fundraising
Revenue Total
Net Expenditures 579,000 574,072 578,000 -0.2% (1,000)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/ PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time 5.0 5.0
Non-F/T
•vehicles 4 4 4
•of violations issued 90 112 100 11% 10
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
No changes
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Lower legal &vehicle chargeback expenditures
30
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Ecology Page 17
ACTIVITY : Divisional Summary
2010 2010 2011
Budaet Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Program Management 263,500 335,519 263,000 -0.2% (500)
Natural Heritage Management 541,000 549,838 620,000 14.6% 79,000
NHM-Development Serv.support
Water Resources 830,900 829,167 839,000 1.0% 8,100
2011 Moved to WM:Sustainable Management System 63,921 -
Flood Forecasting&Warning 346,000 311,001 346,000
Op.&Maintenance of Dams,Channels and Water 319,000 279,769 313,000 -1.9% (6,000)
Special Projects 100,000 40,803 100,000
Expenditure Total 2,400,400 2,410,018 2,481,000 3.4% 80,600
Funding Sources:
Program/Userfees 25,000 20,690 25,000
Reserves 20,000 20,000
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough 4,500
Municipal 25,000 25,000
Provincial 50,000 603 50,000
Federal 25,000 25,000
Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants 37,053 -
Revenue Total 125,000 62,846 145,000 16.0% 20,000
Net Expenditures 2,275,400 2,347,172 2,336,000 2.7% 60,600
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs- Full-time 20.6 20.7 0.2% 0.0
Non-F/T 0.9 1.4 51.4% 0.5
#FTE's Divisional Employees managed 72.5 75.8 4.5% 3.3
Mandated Activity: Conservation Authorities Act - -
#of External Training Days Offered 30 24 30 -
#of Flood Warning Messages Issued 20 15 20 -
#of Number on high alert days(>10mm rainfall) 40 34 40 -
#of of Municipal Training Days 2 1 3 -
#of Media Requests 30 33 30 -
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
2011 -Overage due to 1 Mat Leave returning that was not back filled in 2010 in Natural Heritage.
FTE Changes: Mat. leave return net of Water Technician reductions
Sustainable Management System moved to WM.
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Savings result from charge back of staff salary to projects and Sustainable Technologies moving to Watershed Management part way through the year
Next Page.... 19
31
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 19
ACTIVITY: Divisional Summary
2010 2010 2011
Budaet Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Program Management 359,000 348,849 268,000 -25.3% (91,000)
Inland Fill 316,000 387,949 250,000 -20.9% (66,000)
Plant Propagation (75,000) (225,702) (85,000) 13.3% (10,000)
Planting Projects 500,000 391,560 470,000 -6.0% (30,000)
Archaeology 250,000 348,433 248,000 -0.8% (2,000)
Expenditure Total 1,350,000 1,251,090 1,151,000 -14.7% (199,000)
Funding Sources:
Inland Fill 836,000 812,678 485,000 -42.0% (351,000)
Plant Propagation 25,000 33,992 25,000
Planting Projects 219,000 96,148 191,000 -12.8% (28,000)
Archaeology 120,000 295,882 120,000
Other 80,000 319 -100.0% (80,000)
Program/User fees Total 1,280,000 1,239,020 821,000 -35.9% (459,000)
Reserves (335,000) (489,729) -100.0% 335,000
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough 5,000 7,041 5,000
Municipal 80,000 38,750 80,000
Provincial 5,000 1,615 5,000
Federal 6,000 4,433 6,000
Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants 20,000 30,420 -100.0% (20,000)
Revenue Total 1,061,000 831,550 917,000 -13.6% (144,000)
Net Expenditures 289,000 419,540 234,000 -19.0% (55,000)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 16.7 19.2 15.2% 2.5
Non-F/T 13.6 10.4 -23.2% (3.1)
Facilities: #Buildings 7 7 7
Sq. Footage 50,000 47,000 50,000
•FTE's Divisional Employees managed 105.3 - 103.6 -1.7% (1.8)
•Plants Produced 230,000 232,343 230,000
•Plants Planted 350,000 252,113 350,000
•Cubic Meters of Fill 300,000 241,389 300,000 -
#Archaeological Project Areas 50 62 65 30.0% 15
•Boyd Arch. Field School Students 40 30 40
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Increased net expenditure surplus by$50K from inland projects
Restoration Services will achieve additional$90K net revenue surplus
No need to budget Restoration Services Centre debt repayment because almost paid off in full
FTE Changes: -.8 Archae.,of+.3 Plant prop,-.2 Admin,also conversions to F/TFill FTE Changes: +.2 for new Peel site
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Higher plant propagation revenues went towards the RSC debt repayment
Planting targets lower on private lands so less use of the capital funds in reforestation/tree&shrub programs
Lower wood revenues in forest management program but managed by reducing expenditures
32
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 20
ACTIVITY: Divisional Management
2010 2010 2011
BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. $CHG.
Expenditures:
PARKS&CULTURE ADMIN. 386,000 391,354 354,900 -8.1% (31,100)
PARKS&CULTURE SPONSORSHIP&FUND
PARKS&CULTURE SALES 45,000 40,652 44,900 -0.2% (100)
PARKS&CULTURE CUSTOMER SERVICE 383,000 412,714 356,200 -7.0% (26,800)
814,000 845,066 756,000 -7.1% (58,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Userfees: 24,000 25,425 24,000
Reserves
CFGT- Living City
CFGT- Flowthrough 22,000
Other-Municipal
Other-Provincial
Other-Federal
Other-Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants
24,000 47,425 24,000
NET EXPENDITURES 790,000 797,641 732,000 -7.3% (58,000)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/ PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 8.2 7.7 -5.5% (0.5)
Non-F/T -
Total Division Employee FTE's 143.3 148.7 0.0 5.4
Total Division Visitors 740,000 200,000 500,000
Total Division Revenue 5,748,700 6,127,979 6,028,000 4.9% 279,300
Total Division Cost/Visitor $ 1.63 $ 4.23 $ 1.51 -7.1% $ (0.12)
Total Division Revenue/Visitor $ 11.50 $ 30.64 $ 12.06 4.9% $ 0.56
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA)
Reduced one Customer Service positon by 6 months
FTE Change:-.5 Customer service staff
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
33
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET-FINAL
DIVISION: Parks&Culture Division Page 21
ACTIVITY: Conservation Areas
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
General Operations 100,000 75,737 99,000 -1.0% (1,000)
West Zone
West Zone Administration 89,000 131,060 86,000 -3.4% (3,000)
Albion Hills 802,000 861,691 812,000 1.2% 10,000
Glen Haffy 204,000 185,860 212,000 3.9% 8,000
Indian Line 462,000 353,772 462,000
Boyd 247,000 228,017 249,000 0.8% 2,000
Heart Lake 353,000 324,050 429,000 21.5% 76,000
East Zone -
EastZoneAdministration 90,000 77,683 81,000 -10.0% (9,000)
Bruce's Mill 385,000 518,021 409,000 6.2% 24,000
Petticoat Creek 199,000 171,066 157,000 -21.1% (42,000)
New 2011:Glen Rouge Campground 2,542 213,000 213,000
Land Management:
East Zone 124,000 50,631 129,000 4.0% 5,000
West Zone 174,000 48,271 186,000 6.9% 12,000
Major Maintenance 25,000 23,355 25,000
Expenditure Total 3,254,000 3,051,755 3,549,000 9.1% 295,000
Funding Sources:
User Fees-Bruce's Mill 501,000 509,250 536,000 7.0% 35,000
User Fees-Petticoat Creek 141,000 93,229 141,000
User Fees-Heart Lake 400,000 291,700 426,000 6.5% 26,000
User Fees-Albion Hills 1,005,000 960,328 1,005,000
User Fees-Glen Haffy 176,000 139,868 181,000 2.8% 5,000
User Fees-Indian Line 728,000 628,306 730,000 0.3% 2,000
User Fees-Boyd 320,000 285,863 324,000 1.3% 4,000
User Fees-Glen Rouge 214,000 - 214,000
User Fees-Rentals/Other 20,295 -
User Fees Total 3,271,000 2,928,928 3,557,000 8.7% 286,000
Reserves 5,000 5,000
CFGT-Living City -
CFGT-Flowthrough
Municipal
Provincial
Federal 57,708
Donations/Fundraising 169
Non-Government Grants 20,714
Revenue Total 3,276,000
Net Expenditures (22,000) 44,236 (13,000) -40.9% 9,000
IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time
Non-F/T 27.2 32.7555 20.6% 5.6
Facilities:#Buildings 20.0 20 20 -
Acres Managed 12,000 12,000 12,000
Operations:Days of 240 240 240
Number of Visitors 500,000 411,641 500,000 -
Cost/Visitor $ 6.51 $ 7.41 $ 7.10 9.1% 0.59
Revenue/Visitor $ 6.54 $ 7.12 $ 7.11 8.7% 0.57
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Petticoat Creek pool operations remains closed.
Staffing and budget added to Heart Lake to reflect opening of f
FTE Change:-.3 seasonal general helpFTE Change:+3.7 new I
Addition of Glen Rouge Campground budget
Reclassification of Superintendent positions
Utilities and V&E increased 5%(not yet)
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Expenditures:
Expenditures reduced to offset unrealized revenue
Revenue:
34
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET-FINAL
DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 22
ACTIVITY: Kortright Centre for Conservation
2010 2010 2011
BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG.
Expenditures:
ADMINISTRATION 93,252 -
GROUNDS 123,000 125,223 133,000 8.1% 10,000
BUILDINGS 187,000 198,758 191,000 2.1% 4,000
LIVING MACHINE 9,000 7,057 5,000 -44.4% (4,000)
GENERAL PROGRAM 61,000 89,411 66,000 8.2% 5,000
DAY USE 77,700 93,861 77,000 -0.9% (700)
PUBLIC PROGRAMS 37,000 32,068 36,000 -2.7% (1,000)
EDUCATION PROGRAMS 382,602
KCC:DU WETLAND CREATION-OTHER 695
KCC:EDUCATION PROG.DEVELOPMENT -
CAFE 72,000 75,603 80,000 11.1% 8,000
GIFTSHOP 107,000 132,939 98,000 -8.4% (9,000)
CAFE-MAPLE SYRUP 41,000 45,777 39,000 -4.9% (2,000)
CORPORATE FUNCTIONS 58,000 77,088 89,000 53.4% 31,000
GIFT SHOP-MAPLE SYRUP 76,000 76,895 78,000 2.6% 2,000
SUSTAINABLE HOUSE OP/PROGRAM 17,051
PUBLIC MAPLE SYRUP 74,000 91,004 63,000 -14.9% (11,000)
MAPLE SYRUP EDUCATION 2,600 66,340 -100.0% (2,600)
ENERGY WORKSHOPS 85,400
CORPORATE PROGRAMS 1,188
COMMERCIAL FILMING 4,000 -100.0% (4,000)
KITE FESTIVAL 306 -
KCC:MAPLE SYRUP EVENING PROGS. 131
WEDDINGS 182,000 232,364 245,000 34.6% 63,000
KORIGHT:ENERGY THEMED PROGRAMS 852
KORTRIGHT FOOD RESRVE ACTIVITY 12,368 -
Expenditure Total 1,134,700 2,008,265 1,226,000 8.0% 91,300
Funding Sources:
User fees by program Component:
PUBLIC PROGRAMS 53,000 32,377 56,000 5.7% 3,000
EDUCATION PROGRAMS 352,584 -
CAFE 33,000 38,179 33,000
GIFTSHOP 87,000 70,471 75,000 -13.8% (12,000)
CAFE-MAPLE SYRUP 55,300 55,000 -0.5% (300)
GIFT SHOP-MAPLE SYRUP 110,000 130,000 18.2% 20,000
PUBLIC MAPLE SYRUP 108,400 423,665 113,000 4.2% 4,600
WEDDINGS 350,000 431,279 430,000 22.9% 80,000
CORPORATE FUNCTIONS 104,000 66,182 104,000
ENERGY WORKSHOPS 242,375 -
SUSTAINABLE HOUSE OP/PROGRAM 9,242
DAY CAMPS 34,709
ALL OTHER USER FEES 12,000 39 9,000 -25.0% (3,000)
983,700 1,758,462 1,076,000 11.6% 92,300
Reserves -
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough 64,909
Municipal
Provincial
Federal 3,424 -
Donations/Fundraising 228 -
Non-Government Grants -
- 983,700 1,827,023 1,076,000 9.4% 92,300
Net Expenditures 151,000 181,242 150,000 -0.7% (1,000)
IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 4.4 4.4 0.7% 0.0
Non-F/T 7.1 8.6 22.1% 1.6
Facilities:#Buildings 20 20 20
Acres Managed 20,000 20,000 20,000
Operations:Days of 240 240 240
Number of Public Program Visitors 45,000 45,000 45,000
Number of Education Visitors 130,000 79,022 130,000
Cost/Visitor $ 8.73 $ 25.41 $ 9.43 8.0% $ 0.70
Revenue/Visitor $ 7.57 $ 23.12 $ 8.28 9.4% $ 0.71
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Living City Campus budget,50%education,50%marketing transferred to WM.
Popular Wedding program expanded.
FT wages transferred from BC Food Service.
Removed revenue from Windfall Ecology$3,000
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Expenditures:
Increase revenue&expenditures for Corporate and Energy programs.
Reduced education expeditures to offset lower revenue.
Revenue:
Increase revenue&expenditures for Corporate and Energy programs.
Unrealized education revenue due to lower attendance.
35
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 23
ACTIVITY: Oak Ridges Corridor Park
2010 2010 2011
BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. $CHG.
GROSS EXPENDITURES:
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-ADMINISTRATION 490,000 430,208 420,000 -14.3% (70,000)
Oak Ridges Corridor Park 363,000 372,901 374,000 3.0% 11,000
Golf Course:General
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-PRO SHOP 148,000 181,532 152,000 2.7% 4,000
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-SNACK BAR 111,000 105,099 103,000 -7.2% (8,000)
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-DRIVING RANGE 61,000 64,431 58,000 -4.9% (3,000)
OAK RIDGES PARK 297,000 176,911 264,000 -11.1% (33,000)
1,470,000 1,331,081 1,371,000 -6.7% (99,000)
FUNDING SOURCES:
User fees by program Component: 440
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-PRO SHOP 940,000 841,135 917,000 -2.4% (23,000)
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-SNACK BAR 110,000 98,965 110,000
BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-DRIVING RANGE 240,000 191,170 240,000
OAK RIDGES PARK 351,000
User fees Total 1,290,000 1,482,710 1,267,000 -1.8% (23,000)
Reserves
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough
Other- Municipal
Other- Provincial 180,000 (171,000) 104,000 -42.2% (76,000)
Other- Federal
Other- Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants 12,893
1,470,000 1,324,603 1,371,000 -6.7% (99,000)
NET EXPENDITURES 6,479
Staff FTEs-Full-time 5.0 4.8 -4.0% (0.2)
Non-F/T 11.5 11.6 1.1% 0.1
Facilities: #Buildings 5 5 5.0 -
Acres Managed 20,000 20,000 20,000
Operations: Days of 240 240 240
Number of Visitors 55,000 22,983 55,000
Cost/Visitor excluding Park) $ 21.33 $ 50.22 $ 20.13 -5.6% $ (1.20)
Revenue/Visitor $ 23.45 $ 64.51 $ 23.04 -1.8% $ (0.42)
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Same service level in 2010
Admin. Coordinator position added in 2010 included in 2011 budget
FT postion transferred to Petticoat Creek to remain unfilled for 2011.
Revenue adjusted to be more in line with 2010 actuals.
FTE Change: +1 New ORC Admin net of less Proj Man,labourers
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Expenditures reduced to offset revenue shortfall.
36
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 24
ACTIVITY: Black Creek Pioneer Village
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g.
Expenditures:
Program Management 247,000 224,509 227,000 -8.1% (20,000)
Curatorial 272,000 352,333 231,000 -15.1% (41,000)
Photography
Interpretative Programming 1,304,000 1,260,862 1,302,000 -0.2% (2,000)
Special Events 88,000 86,274 73,000 -17.0% (15,000)
Heritage Education 330,000 310,060 343,000 3.9% 13,000
Building Maintenance 1,213,000 1,107,870 1,155,000 -4.8% (58,000)
Admissions 191,000 170,933 195,000 2.1% 4,000
Giftshop 384,000 377,371 320,000 -16.7% (64,000)
Marketing and Sponsorships 203,000 198,872 203,000
New: Brewery Operations 117,000 98,492 105,000 -10.3% (12,000)
Expenditure Total 4,349,000 4,188,153 4,154,000 -4.5% (195,000)
Funding Sources:
Curatorial 5,000 15,361 5,000
Photography 50,000 47,277 50,000
Interpretative Programming 17,000 16,424 20,000 17.6% 3,000
Special Events 90,000 69,690 97,000 7.8% 7,000
Heritage Education 526,000 493,593 542,000 3.0% 16,000
Admissions 654,000 532,926 559,000 -14.5% (95,000)
Parking 420,000 309,113 365,000 -13.1% (55,000)
Giftshop 470,000 398,445 410,000 -12.8% (60,000)
New: Brewery Operations 73,000 28,175 54,000 -26.0% (19,000)
Other
Program/User fees Total 2,305,000 1,911,004 2,102,000 -8.8% (203,000)
Reserves
Interest Earnings
CFGT-Flowthrough 150,349 75,000 75,000
Municipal -
Provincial 221,000 235,204 240,000 8.6% 19,000
Federal 11,427
Donations/Fundraising 8,000 5 11,000 37.5% 3,000
Private 7,679 -
Revenue Total 2,534,000 2,315,667 2,428,000 -4.2% (106,000)
Net Expenditures 1,815,000 1,872,486 1,726,000 -4.9% (89,000)
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 17.4 n/a 15.9 -8.4% -1.5
Non-F/T 39.5 n/a 37.2 -5.8% -2.3
Facilities: #Buildings 50 50 50 -
Sq. Footage 170,000 170,000 170,000
Site Hectares 31 31 31
Operations: Days of 246 250 246
Number of Non-paying Visitors 32,000 24,418 32,000
Number of Paying Visitors 113,000 110,290 109,000 -3.5% (4,000)
Cost/all visitors $ 29.99 $ 31.09 $ 29.46 -1.8% $ (0.53)
Revenue per paying visitor $ 20.40 $ 17.33 $ 19.28 -5.5% $ 1.11
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
More realistic admission revenue target but more fundraising to diversify.
Agressively marketed revised Ed program&new 2 month summer theme to increase audience,season.
Consolidate Laskay retail with Gift Shop to cut costs and improve net revenue.
FT&Supplementary Staff reductions including Exhibit Coordinator, Interpreters,Gift Shop Staff,and Maintenance
FTE change:-4 less gift shop,interpreters,&misc.staff
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Revenue shortfalls in admissions,brewery,gift shop and parking,offset by general constraints and$75K transfer from CFGT BCPV account
New program Lunch with Santa added
37
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET-FINAL
DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 25
ACTIVITY: Food Services
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. $Chg.
Weddings:Sales Costs&Revenue 196,000 204,159 254,000 29.6% 58,000
Corporate Events:Sales Costs/Revenue 455,000 338,332 334,000 -26.6% (121,000)
Banquet Costs&Internal Functions 141,000 126,226 158,000 12.1% 17,000
Visitor Services 153,000 179,012 254,000 66.0% 101,000
Equipment 49,026
Marketing 40,000 21,904 -100.0% (40,000)
Adjust for Internal charges (115,000) (98,113) (115,000)
FOOD:CENTRAL PURCHASING 62,916
Expenditure Total 870,000 883,462 885,000 1.7% 15,000
Funding Sources:
Weddings 253,000 210,340 331,000 30.8% 78,000
Corporate Events 530,100 362,272 362,000 -31.7% (168,100)
Internal 2,900 under exp. 3,000 3.4% 100
Visitor Services-Brew Pub 117,000 104,763 109,000 -6.8% (8,000)
Pavilion Snackbar/BBC 61,000 49,509 52,000 -14.8% (9,000)
Thanksgiving 16,593 14,000 14,000
March Break 18,580 19,000 19,000
Mothers Day 4,154 4,000 4,000
Christmas Dinners 10,453 14,000 14,000
Christmas by Lamplight 27,000 27,000
Lunch with Santa 4,071
Other(Rides etc) 735
Total Program/User fees 964,000 781,469 935,000 -3.0% (29,000)
Reserves
CFGT-Living City
CFGT-Flowthrough
Municipal
Provincial
Federal
Donations/Fundraising
Non-Government Grants
Revenue Total 964,000 781,469 935,000 -3.0% (29,000)
Net Expenditures (94,000) 101,993 (50,000) -46.8% 44,000
IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 3.7 4.7 27.4% 1.0
Non-F/T 7.3 6.8 -7.2% (0.5)
Facilities:Sq.Footage 3.00 3.00 3.00
Operations:Days of 240 240 240 -
Number of Clients-Weddings 3,400 2,666 4,500 32.4% 1,100
Number of Clients-Corporate 14,700 9,915 10,400 -29.3% (4,300)
Number of Clients-Internal 7,800 6,554 7,800 -
Cost/Visitor $ 33.59 $ 46.17 $ 38.99 16.1% $ 5.40
Revenue/Visitor $ 37.22 $ 40.84 $ 41.19 10.7% $ 3.97
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Wedding program revenue projected higher.
FT wages reallocated to Kortright for Corporate and Weddings.
Marketing expenditures reallocated to programs.
Visitor Services budget broken into separate programs.
Corporate program revenue&expenditures reduced to reflect actuals
FTE Change:+7 Event supervisor
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS
Expenditure constraints to offset reduced revenue in corporate and wedding programs.
Increased revenue&expenditures for brewery operation.
Unrealized corporate and wedding revenue.
38
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL
DIVISION: Office of the CAO, Human Resources, Marketing and Communication Page 26
ACTIVITY: CAO's and Other Programs
2010 2010 2011
Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. $Chg.
Expenditures:
Corporate Management 587,000 548,765 585,000 -0.3% (2,000)
Corporate Secretariat 437,000 458,017 436,000 -0.2% (1,000)
Human Resources 489,000 517,571 529,000 8.2% 40,000
Corporate Communications 1,335,000 1,230,618 1,331,000 -0.3% (4,000)
Professional Access 450,000 618,093 763,000 69.6% 313,000
Expenditure Total 3,298,000 3,373,065 3,644,000 10.5% 346,000
Funding Sources:
Program/User fees 1,088 4,500 4,500
Reserves
Interest Earnings 612
CFGT-Flowthrough
Municipal
Provincial 379,000 558,228 703,000 85.5% 324,000
Federal 4,000 3,360 -100.0% (4,000)
Donations/Fundraising -
Non-Government Grants 2,000 38,349 2,500 25.0% 500
Special Programs -
Revenue Total 385,000 601,637 710,000 84.4% 325,000
Net Expenditures 2,913,000 2,771,428 2,934,000 0.7% 21,000
IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION
Staff FTEs-Full-time 22.7 27.2 19.3% 4.4
Non-F/T 5.5 4.0 (0.27) (1.5)
Authority Members 28.0 - 28.0 -
HR: #of employees(ft&pt)support 1,000 1,094 1,100 10.0% 100
HR Costs per employee 467 - 467
Staff Turnover(Regrettable Losses) 2.7% 2.7% 4.30 - 4.3
Average Sick Days 5.13 5.13 not avail. -
Lost Days Due to on the Job Injuries 13.25 -
Monthly Website Visitors 55,000 54,486 157,000 185.5% 102,000
PAIE Participants/M2P 45 45 85 88.9% 40
Environmental Volunteer Network 2,000 2,000 2,000 -
Mentors 8 8 40 400.0% 32
#of Board Reports 203 200 200
Comments:
NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA)
Management-catch-up of Honour Roll trees(offset by no WGBC expenses).
Corporate Secretariat-members fees decreased because Chair getting per diem rather than salary; legal fees increased.
HR-staff accommodation&summer intern;catch-up on years of service awards.
Scope of PAIE programs increases in 2011 offset by extra revenue.
FTE: +2.5 PAIEE CC: No changeRSS portion FTE Changes: .4 temporarily moved to HR
NOTES: 2010 VARIANCES
Corporate Management under budget due to gapping;delay in Honour Roll tree plantings&new event software provider.
Corporate Secretariat over budget due to legal fees. Partially offset in savings in members expenses.
HR over budget because of absorbing expenses from another division.
Corporate Communications under budget due to gapping.
PAIE-new account not previously in the budget but does not affect variance.
39
SECTION 3
2011 CAPITAL BUDGET
40
11 1
r� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co co v O O O co v v cn co
N O O O O O O O O O O O N 0 O N N O O O N N N n (O Q
y O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O O O O O O Ln O O 00
O Ln O - Cl)
R O (O I� CO O V Ln Ln Ln N CO O 00 CO C O O N O O V
d O M M M Ln CO � M V M N Cl) Cl) Cl) co 6 CO V I� Ln M
_
O
N
EA
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M O
O O O N N -�T n ll'l O
r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 lfl O O O O f� � O Q
r lfl lfl O O O V N M O O O N 00 N O n M n O n N M O O Q
00 O M N N n O M r O O n N N O n M 00 n -�T
N r M M M Lq M O N f0 N r f0 M M r M r M O ll'l n n M N
M m vS N
M
O r
N
Efl
O co N co lLf) COO Cl)
cO LO
C > %l
r 0
O Q
�N Q
L a
a
a O N N lOfl N 0
_ L
R 7 N Q 000
° a 64
a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO O
00 lfl lfl f� ll'l 0 N f� 00 oo lfl
U L r > M N M N M N N oo a N O LO
a' O p
H }N Q O
o a 64
O O O O O O O O O O
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
7 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 111 M r a N 1n
LL N
O a a a a a a m
L Q R R R R R R (0
+�+ O N Q c c c c c c
cc
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
v vS M of o M o o vS u7 of vS o vS v v o m N
0 00 N> 00 M f� O m V N O n M O M 00 �
r M r r O 00 M M f0 N M r M O — Q
r 0 ) (0
cc a N a °°
a
a 64
O
N
N
J
0
o ++
O C
Q O a)
R r_ O E >cc
O E O O L
O Q- C"
LL N N L t:! E
o o L a 0 cc 0
a) cc
o 4- � a cc
+� a R O L L c a cn
c a�U a>i a c a) c
� O O C .- c O 0 E v O_ Q
c o +� E N *' is
a C 0 c i N r t4 O N y O R 0 7 L c O
L E L C + O W N M N O = L S N E
> d W R w
y y N (Sj E N L C N N 0a) () V 0 0
y N 2 y 7 a Y O a 0-° N O N N Q- 7 +, 0
L i E t p f4 y .� O N R R -a C +L+ N C
N L
a R > Q-•0 o C7 J N J
Q- N O a
E EE � � aor_ �
a a� c aE � O
R
L .� O U r - •� L V L
N a� ++ a� L a� y " c� o f z
Q OL y R 7 N 0 N c O w W t3 N O 7 t3 w 41
L aL � (7 � zU) wF3: a- Lu YmOz � U1Ua25 t7
RES.#C6/11 - APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS
The Conservation Authorities Act requires each conservation authority to
undergo an external audit of its accounts and transactions each year.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Grant Thornton LLP be
appointed auditors of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the year
2011, in accordance with section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act reads as follows:
38. (1) Every authority shall cause its accounts and transactions to be audited
annually by a person licensed under the Public Accountancy Act . R.S.O.
1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (1).
(2) No person shall be appointed as auditor of an authority who is or during the
preceding year was a member of the authority or who has or during the
preceding year had any direct or indirect interest in any contract or any
employment with the authority other than for services within his or her
professional capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (2).
(3) An authority shall, upon receipt of the auditors report of the examination of its
accounts and transactions, forthwith forward a copy of the report to each
participating municipality and to the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (3).
At Authority Meeting #8/10, held on October 29, 2010, Resolution #A182/10 was approved, in
part, as follows:
THAT the contract for Audit Services be awarded to Grant Thornton at an initial annual
cost not to exceed$46,725.00, plus applicable taxes for 2010 and an annual increase of
two to four per cent for the following four years, for Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) and The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto (CFGT);
THAT, pursuant to Section 38 of the Conservation Authorities Act, the firm of Grant
Thornton be appointed auditors of TRCA, effective November 1, 2010;
THAT the term of the engagement be for five years subject to annual appointments by the
Authority based on satisfactory performance; ...
RATIONALE
Grant Thornton LLP has been appointed TRCA's auditor since 2004, following a competition for
audit services conducted in the summer of 2004 and the summer of 2010. Although the
contract period is for five years starting with 2010, the annual reappointment is subject to
performance satisfactory to TRCA. Staff is pleased to report that the most recent audit was
completed to its satisfaction and it anticipates similar performance for 2011.
42
Staff recommends the reappointment of Grant Thornton LLP for the 2011 audit year, as
required by the Rules of Conduct.
Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232
Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232
Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca
Date: April 5, 2011
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES.#C7/11 - 2010 YEAR END FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT
Provides information on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
financial performance for the year ended December 31, 2010, in relation
to the 2010 budget.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA)
Financial Progress Report dated December 31, 2010, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Financial Progress Report is one of the tools through which staff advise the Authority of the
status of TRCA's budget. As part of the financial management process, staff provide to the
Budget/Audit Advisory Board (BAAB) financial progress reports which compare actual financial
performance to the annual budget. This report covers the year ended December 31, 2010.
RATIONALE
Staff has included within the 2011 Operating and Capital Budget documents, 2010 actual and
2010 budget information for comparison. Staff will be working with the auditors on the 2010
financial statements in May, 2011. The financial statements will be presented to BAAB at its
meeting scheduled to be held on June 10, 2011. In finalizing the 2010 financial statements, the
2010 actuals may be adjusted, but not significantly.
The 2010 financial performance resulted in a combined operating and capital surplus of
$356,872. Separately, details for each of the operating and capital financial results are listed
below.
43
The 2010 operating results disclose a$261,937 deficit. Key factors of the variance were:
Division Deficit Explanation
(Surplus)
Restoration Services 130,540 In fill revenues transferred to reserve for$498,000,
partially offset by increased plant propagation
revenues
Planning and Development (354,950) Increase in fees for permits and MESPs
CAO's Office, HR, Marketing (141,522) Under budget due to gapping in CAO's Office and
& Communications Communications
Watershed Management (75,399) Expenditures constrained to offset Conservation Field
Strategies Centre's deficit
Watershed Management (111,014) Staffing changes and constraints to offset
Administration and Ecology Conservation Field Centre's deficit
Conservation Field Centres 110,243 Unrealized revenue due to lower than budgeted
attendance
Finance and Business (44,081) Interest earnings, PST rebates in excess of budget.
Services Wages costs exceeded budget due to temp hirings
and accommodations
CFGT and Levy 283,262 CFGT fundraising of$250,000 did not materialize
Parks and Culture 364,076 Unrealized revenue due to lower than budgeted
attendance, off set by expenditure reductions
Finance and Business 82,997 Wild Water Kingdom back taxes (recoverable) and
Services - Rentals property vacancies
Finance and Business 17,785 Increased property taxes
Services - Property
Total 261,937
The 2010 capital budget produced a surplus of$618,809. Key factors of the variance were:
Project Deficit Explanation
(Surplus)
Restoration Services (194,113) Surplus resulting from various special purpose
projects during the year
ORM Park (26,973) Various projects completed in the year leaving minor
surplus
York Natural Heritage (24,394) Various projects completed in the year leaving minor
surplus
Other Building Infrastructure (41.278) Deficit of$253,000 for the construction of the Petticoat
Creek pool (as budgeted) offset by a$300,000 YR
recovery for expenses incurred in previous years
Land Acquisition (308,662) Proceeds from land sale
Humber Bay Shores (14,016) Proceeds from land sale
Various other projects (9,373) Numerous projects with minor surplus remaining
Total (618,809)
44
There are multiple capital projects for which expenditures varied from budget. Reasons include
factors such as:
• delays in obtaining various approvals and matching funding;
• need for additional communication or public meetings;
• project completion schedules which cover multiple years; and
• weather conditions which cause delays of in-ground work.
Provision is made for the carry-forward of funding for capital works that are delayed. Capital
funding is normally project specific, meaning there is less opportunity for surplus funds to
accumulate for unrestricted usage.
Report prepared by: Janice Darnley, extension 5768
Emails: jdarnley @trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Ralph Kofler, extension 5274, Jim Dillane, extension 6292
Emails: rkofier @trca.on.ca; jdillane @trca.on.ca
Date: April 04, 2011
RES.#C8/11 - PURCHASING POLICY
2011 Review. Advises the board that staff will be reviewing the
purchasing policy in 2011.
Moved by: Dave Ryan
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report dated April 1, 2011, advising of the review of the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Purchasing Policy in 2011, be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA's Purchasing Policy was reviewed extensively in 2005 with the assistance of an outside
consultant. The updated policy was approved at Authority Meeting #5/05, held on June 24,
2005. For reference, a copy of the policy is attached.
Section 1.22 of the Policy requires a review of the policy every five years. Staff will undertake
this review in 2011 and report to the Authority through the Budget and Audit Advisory
Committee.
RATIONALE
A key provision in the Purchasing Policy relates to the "non-competitive procurement process",
or"sole sourcing". Staff is aware that use of non-competitive procurement is of concern to the
provincial government and to TRCA's municipal partners. TRCA's policy is constructed to
recognize that it is critical to use public financial resources effectively. While competitive
procurement is preferable, there are circumstances where non-competitive procurement is
appropriate and cost effective. Section 1.14 of the Policy reads:
45
A non-competitive procurement process shall only be used if one or more of the
following conditions apply and a process of negotiation is undertaken to obtain the best
value in the circumstances for the TRCA. Authorized Buyers are authorized to enter into
negotiations without formal competitive bids, under the following circumstances:
1. The goods and services are only available from one source or one supplier by
reason of.
• A statutory or market based monopoly
• A fluctuating market prevents the TRCA from obtaining price protection or
owing to market conditions, required goods or services are in short
supply
• Existence of exclusive rights (patent, copyright or licence)
• Need for compatibility with goods and services previously acquired and
there are no reasonable alternatives, substitutes or accommodations
• Need to avoid violating warranties and guarantees where service is
required
2. An attempt to purchase the required goods and services has been made in good
faith using a competitive method and has failed to identify a successful supplier.
3. When the extension or reinstatement of an existing contract would prove most
cost-effective or beneficial. The extension shall not exceed one year.
4. The goods and services are required as a result of an emergency, which would
not reasonably permit the use of the other methods permitted.
5. The required goods and services are to be supplied by a particular vendor or
supplier having special knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be
provided by any other supplier.
6. Any other sole or single source purchase permitted under the provisions of this
policy including those noted in Schedule `B'.
The Policy provides that the Chief Administrative Officer can approve non-competitive
procurement up to $50,000. Executive Committee approval is required for purchase of$50,000
to $200,000 and over$200,000, non-competitive purchases go to the Authority. Staff report to
the Authority semi-annually on purchases authorized by the CAO including explanations of why
non-competitive procurement was necessary.
At Authority Meeting #1/11, held January 28, 2011, staff reported to the Authority on
procurements in 2010. Staff identified that the total of all procurement over$10,000 which was
approved by the Authority, Executive Committee or by the CAO was$13.1 million. About 80%
of this procurement, about$10.4 million, was by competitive purchase. The balance, about
$2.7 million was non-competitive procurement in compliance with TRCA's Purchasing Policy.
46
Of the$2.7 million, four items totalling $944,000 were approved by the Authority and four items
totalling $311,000 by the Executive Committee. In the case of each item, detailed explanations
were offered as to why non-competitive procurement was necessary. For example, a$400,000
contract was awarded to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority to carry out
groundwater studies on behalf of TRCA and partners in the groundwater monitoring program.
Also, a$211,000 contract was awarded to the US Forest Service for research on tree canopy
that is only available through the US Forestry Service. Another example is the award of a
$70,000 contract to a consultant to carry out the second phase of work on a parks project
funded through the federal/provincial stimulus program for which the timing was critical. To
bring in a new consultant would have not only cost more but delayed the project beyond the
timeframe for federal/provincial funding.
In the category of procurement up to $50,000 approved by the CAO, about 62 items were
approved for a total of$1.5 million. Of these approvals, item #5, specialized knowledge, skills,
expertise or experience was cited in about 60% of sole source approvals and item #3, a cost
effective extension of no more than one year, was cited about 30% of the time. Examples in the
category of under$50,000 non-competitive procurement included: the Beer Store/LCBO
($20,000), Ryerson University ($30,000), Supply of Elevator doors ($27,750), Tent Top for Patio
Tent at Black Creek Pioneer Village ($14,180), Mimico Waterfront Park Appraisal Work
($48,000), Chubb Alarm systems ($25,000), University of Toronto Partners in Project Green
Parking lot ($35,000), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (three contracts of$15,000, $10,000 and
$35,000). In all cases, staff is required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CAO and the
respective Director that use of non-competitive procurement meets the policy criteria as set out
above.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will be reviewing the Purchasing Policy as required. Staff will report to the board with
suggested changes to the policy reflecting five years of experience working with the policy.
Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, 416-667-6292
Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Jim Dillane, 416-667-6292
Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca
Date: March 30, 2011
Attachments: 1
47
Attachment 1
��Iu��lll TORONTO AND REGION�Y�
onserva ion
for The Living City
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
PURCHASING POLICY
For additional information or clarification of this policy,
contact the Controller or the Director, Finance and Business Development.
Approved Meeting #5105, Resolution #A124/05, June 24, 2005
48
SECTION 1.0 PURCHASING POLICY
1.1 Definitions and Terms
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Authorization and Limits
1.4 Processes and Methods
1.5 Unsolicited Quotations or Proposals
1.6 Official Point of Contact
1.7 Public Openings
1.8 Tender/Proposal Irregularities
1.9 Mathematical Errors
1.10 Tied Bids
1.11 Evaluation of Proposals
1.12 Vendor Debriefings
1.13 Vendor Complaints
1.14 Non-Competitive Procurement Process
1.15 Cooperative Purchasing
1.16 Vendor Sureties and Performance
1.17 Sustainability Requirements
1.18 Disposal of Goods
1.19 Disposal of Real Estate
1.20 Revenue from Use or Sale of Other Assets
1.21 Ethics
1.22 Review of Purchasing Policies and Implementation of
Administrative Procedures
APPENDICES TO THE PURCHASING POLICY
Schedule `A' Purchasing Methods, Limits and Authorities
Schedule `B' Goods and Services not subject this policy
Schedule `C' Additional purchasing policies adopted by the Authority from time
to time
49
1.0 PURCHASING POLICY
Inherent in the Administration Regulation made under the Conservation
Authorities Act and more specifically the Rules of Conduct for the TRCA is the
need for sound and effective purchasing policies for the expenditure of public
funds.
This policy establishes authorities, responsibilities, processes and methods to be
used in the acquisition and disposal of goods and services. The policy shall be
read in conjunction with any written administrative procedures and, upon
adoption, shall replace any existing purchasing policy.
The Purchasing Policy is consistent with TRCA's Living City Vision and
advances TRCA's business excellence and sustainability objectives. Section
1.17 recognizes the importance of sustainability in the execution of purchasing
decisions.
1.1 Definitions and Terms
The words and phases listed hereunder when used in this policy or any
purchasing procedures shall have the following meanings ascribed to them.
AUTHORITY— The appointed Members of the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority.
AUTHORIZED BUYER— Staff authorized by the Chief Administrative
Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or his/her designate to purchase goods and services
pursuant to this policy.
BID - An offer from a bidder in response to a call for quotations or tenders,
which may be accepted or rejected.
BIDDER- A vendor submitting an offer to the TRCA.
BLANKET PURCHASE ORDER—A contract between the TRCA and a vendor
to facilitate the delivery of repetitive use goods and services over a period of
time. May also be referred to as a blanket or open order. The purchase order
amount is deemed to be the total estimated cost for the contract term.
COMMITMENT—A contractual obligation for the purchase of goods and
services including the issuance of a purchase order/blanket purchase order or
the execution of any agreement evidencing the obligation. The commitment
amount is deemed to be the total estimated cost for the contract term.
50
MULTI-YEAR COMMITMENT—A maximum term of five years in respect of
a commitment, beyond which Authority approval is required.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/SECRETARY-TREASURER OR
DESIGNATE-For purposes of the policy, "Designate" refers to the individual
to whom authority is delegated by the Chief Administrative
Officer/Secretary-Treasurer.
CONTRACT—A binding agreement between two or more parties.
CO-OPERATIVE PURCHASING—Purchasing under an arrangement with
other public bodies for the purchase of goods and services on a cooperative or
joint basis where there are economic advantages in doing so.
DECENTRALIZED PURCHASING- The practice by which TRCA authorizes
designated staff to be authorized buyers and to assume responsibility for the
acquisition of goods and services as provided for in this policy and to be
accountable for compliance with this policy.
EMERGENCY—An event that, is determined to be a threat to health, safety and
welfare of persons or property; requires the maintenance of essential service,
protection and security of the TRCA interests or mitigation of a liability or
prevent serious delays or further damage; and requires the immediate purchase
and delivery of goods and services operating outside of the requirements of this
policy.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE- The committee appointed by the Authority to
where powers are delegated.
GOODS AND SERVICES -Labour, materials, products, equipment, supplies
and services (including constriction and any type of consulting or professional
and technical services in relation to real property or personal property including
but not limited to constriction, architects, engineers, designers, surveyors,
management and financial consultants, brokers, real estate appraisers, auditors,
bankers and all other services, that are the subject of the contract.
MONETARY REFERENCES —All references in this policy to dollar amounts
are to Canadian dollars and shall be exclusive of taxes.
PERSONAL PURCHASE- Goods or services requested by a member or any
employee of the TRCA, the requirement for which is not for the TRCA purposes
but is for the benefit and use of the person requesting the purchase.
51
PUBLICLY ADVERTISED - Advertising in any publication of general
circulation including the Internet.
PROPOSAL - An offer from a vendor in response to a request for proposal,
which may be subject to further negotiation.
PURCHASE ORDER- A written or electronic request to purchase goods or
services; or a written or electronic acceptance of an offer.
PURCHASE REQUISITION OR REQUISITION—A request, in an approved
form, to acquire goods or services.
QUOTATION- An offer from a vendor to provide goods or services.
SURETY - A specified dollar amount in the form acceptable to the Director,
Finance and Business Development of cash, certified cheque, bid bond,
performance bond, labour and materials bond, letter of credit or any other
approved form of collateral as deemed necessary.
TENDER—A written offer in a specified form received from a vendor in
response to an invitation to a public call for tenders.
TRCA - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
VENDOR—A supplier of goods and services
Additional definitions as and when required will be included in the purchasing
procedures.
1.2 Objectives
To achieve its business excellence objective, TRCA supports fair, open,
transparent, accountable, and efficient and effective procurement processes
through the solicitation of multiple bids, proposals and direct negotiation.
In the interpretation and application of this policy, regard shall be given to the
following objectives:
• To promote efficient and effective procurement processes and decisions
and establish clear responsibility, accountability and authority for the
processes and decisions in the purchase of goods and services.
52
• To promote the most effective use of public funds and ensure the greatest
value for the purchase of goods and services through the exercise of
professional purchasing practices, free from influence and interference,
and encourage where practical, standardization and open and competitive
bidding.
• To implement management and financial controls that meet the
requirements of the TRCA and ensure accountability of those
responsible for requisitioning and purchasing goods and services.
• To allow purchasing decisions to be made as efficiently as possible
through the delegation of authority and empowerment of staff while at
all times having regard for the purchasing policy.
• To adopt methods of acquisition and disposal that achieve the most
competitive and responsive offers, terms and conditions wherever
possible and promote procurement processes and decisions that are
consistent with the Living City Objectives and TRCA objectives.
• To promote acceptance of bids based on total acquisition and life cycle
cost rather than the lowest bid received and encourage specifications,
whenever possible, that are environmentally responsible and sustainable.
1.3 Authorization and Limits
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate is given the
authority and responsibility to operate a decentralized purchasing program on
behalf of the TRCA in accordance with the requirements of this policy and to
act on behalf of the TRCA in entering into contracts with third parties for the
purchase and disposal of all goods and services.
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall
determine the form, content and use of forms, whether electronic or printed
including requisitions, purchase orders, bid and contract documentation, bonds,
letters of credit and other forms of guarantee or surety.
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate may delegate
to Authorized Buyers, all or part of the authority to purchase goods and services
in accordance with this policy.
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall
maintain a list of designated employees and their respective authorities and
limitations.
53
Authorized Buyers shall be authorized to make an award arising from a request
for quotations, tenders or proposals to the lowest bidder whose bid meets the
specifications and requirement set out in the tender or quotation; for proposals,
having completed the required evaluation, an award to the highest ranked
proponent whose bid meets the requirements of the proposal call, including the
evaluation criteria set out in the call; and for quotations, tenders and proposals,
that there is no material, written objection.
Where the recommended award is not from the lowest acceptable bidder or
highest ranked proposal, the award must be approved in accordance with
Schedule `A'.
Records and files of documents, transactions, authorizations, approvals and
actions under this policy shall be kept and maintained according the TRCA
records retention policy and subject to the requirements of the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Authorities and responsibilities shall be applied and administered having regard
to the provisions of any financial control policies or any other approval
requirements.
Where all the requirements of this policy have been met, the appropriate
officials are authorized to execute formal contracts.
The following Schedules, as may be amended by the Authority from time to
time, are attached and give effect to this policy.
• Schedule `A' outlines the Limits and Authorization associated with each
Purchasing Method; Acceptable Bids and Proposals; and Disposal of
Goods.
• Schedule `B' provides a listing of designated goods and services not
subject to this policy or the issuance of a purchase order.
• Schedule `C' provides for the inclusion of any additional purchasing
policies adopted by the Authority from time to time.
In the case of purchases of goods or services having a value of less than $1,000
the requirements of this policy as to the method of purchase do not apply
provided that such purchase is undertaken in compliance with any applicable
purchasing procedures.
In the case of revenue generating contracts the limits and authorities outlined in
Schedule `A' apply, except that the vendor offering the highest return shall be
considered.
54
1.4 Processes and Methods
Subject to the provisions and dollar limits of Schedule `A', the following
processes and methods of acquisition are to be used to give effect to the TRCA
purchasing objectives:
• A Request for Pre-qualification shall be used, and precede a Request
for Tenders, Quotations or Proposals in order to identify and pre-select
bidders, where it is deemed that the nature and complexity of the work
involved warrants the time and effort required to pre-select the most
experienced and qualified bidders.
• A Request for Expressions of Interest shall be used to determine the
interest of the market place to provide a scope of work or services
contemplated to be procured by the TRCA.
• A Request for Tenders shall be used to obtain offers from a vendor by
way of a public tender call, to provide goods and services, whenever the
requirements can be precisely defined and the expectation is that the
lowest bid meeting the requirements specified in the request would be
accepted, subject to any other provisions of this policy and the Tendering
limits specified in Schedule 'A'.
• A Request for Quotations shall be used to obtain offers from a vendor
to provide goods and services, whenever the requirements can be
precisely defined and the expectation is that the lowest bid meeting the
requirements specified in the request would be accepted, subject to any
other provisions of this policy and the Quotation limits specified in
Schedule `A'.
• A Request for Proposals shall be used to obtain offers from a vendor to
provide goods and services of a unique or complex nature where all or
part of the requirements cannot be precisely defined and the expectation
is that the proposal offered by the highest ranked proponent resulting
from an evaluation and meeting the requirements specified in the
request, including the evaluation criteria set out in the Request, would be
accepted, subject to any other provisions of this policy and the Proposal
limits specified in Schedule 'A'.
• An Informal Request for Quotations shall be used to obtain offers
from a vendor by means of telephone, fax, e-mail or other similar
solicitation method to a minimum of three bidders, where possible, to
obtain lowest cost, prompt service, procurement of goods and services
expeditiously and cost effectively, subject to the informal quotation
limits specified in Schedule 'A'.
55
1.5 Unsolicited Quotations or Proposals
Consistent with the TRCA position to support effective, objective, fair, open,
transparent, accountable, and efficient procurement processes through the
solicitation of multiple bids, proposals and direct negotiation, the TRCA does
not accept unsolicited, formal quotations or proposals.
Any exception must be approved by the Authority. A report to the Authority
shall include comments from the Chief Administrative
Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate.
1.6 Official Point of Contact
TRCA is committed to the highest standards of integrity with respect to the
purchase of goods and services and managing the processes by which goods and
services are acquired.
An official point of contact shall be named by the vendor/proponent in response
to Quotations, Tenders, and Proposals to respond to all communications to and
from TRCA staff from the time of issuance, during the competitive process, and
up to and including the announcement of award. TRCA shall name an official
point of contact to whom the vendor shall direct all communications. TRCA
and the vendor acknowledge and agree that the individual named as the
"official point of contact" shall be the initial contact and may choose to redirect
the communication to another individual.
Any vendor found to be in breach of this section of the policy will be subject to
disqualification from the request or a future request(s) at the discretion of the
Authority.
1.7 Public Openings and Tender Opening Committee
Any Requests for Tenders over $100,000 are to be opened by the Tender
Opening Committee at the time and location specified in the Proposal
Document.
At its sole discretion, TRCA may decide that to publicly advertise Requests for
Proposals because of their nature and complexity or because it is in the public
interest. Requests for Proposals which are publicly advertised shall be received
by the Tender Opening Committee at the time and location specified in the
Proposal Document. This process shall apply to publicly advertised Requests
for Pre-Qualification, Expressions of Interest and Quotations.
56
Public advertising means advertisements in written or electronic media, trade
publications, on the TRCA web site or other forms of advertising as determined
by TRCA.
The Tender Opening Committee shall be comprised of an Authority Member,
the Authorized Buyer, a representative of the Director of Finance and Business
Development and a representative of the CAO's Office.
All other solicitations are not opened in a public forum but the results will be
available upon written request to the Authorized Buyer.
1.8 Tender/ProposalIrregularities
The following irregularities contained in a Tender or publicly opened Proposal
received by the TRCA shall result in the following actions to be taken by the
Authorized Buyer:
IRREGULARITY ACTION
Late submission Automatic rejection and not
opened or otherwise disclosed
Insufficient or unacceptable Automatic rejection
surety
Submission not signed in ink or Automatic rejection unless, in the
incomplete submission opinion of the Chief Administrative
Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or his/her
designate, the incomplete nature is trivial
or insignificant
Qualified submission (qualified Automatic rejection unless, in the
or restricted by an attached opinion of the Chief Administrative
statement, unless allowed for) Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or his/her
designate, the qualification or restriction
is trivial or insignificant
Submission received on Automatic rejection unless, in the
documents other than those opinion of the Chief Administrative
provided by the TRCA or in a Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or his/her
form unacceptable to the TRCA designate the matter is deemed to be
minor
57
IRREGULARITY ACTION
Erasures, overwriting or
strikeouts that are not
initialed:
• Uninitiated changes to Two (2) business days to
submission that are minor initial/date
(example: the vendor's
address is amended by
over-writing but not
initialed)
• Unit prices have been Two (2) business days to
changed but not initialed and initial/date
the contract totals are
consistent with the price as
amended
• Unit prices have been Automatic rejection
changed but not initialed and
the contract totals are not
consistent with the price as
amended
Minor Irregularities The Chief Administrative
Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or his/her
designate shall have the authority to
waive irregularities deemed to be minor.
In exercising judgment the Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or
his/her designate shall consider any advice provided by the TRCA legal counsel.
See Schedule `A' for Limits and Authorities
1.9 Mathematical Errors
Terms and conditions for unit price contracts shall include a statement
indicating that where there is a discrepancy between the total price and the unit
price, the unit price shall prevail.
During the bid evaluation process, where any discrepancy exists between the
total price and the unit price, the unit price shall prevail and the total bid price
shall be adjusted accordingly.
58
1.10 Tied Bids
In order to minimize the risk of tied bids, request for Tenders, Quotations and
Proposals should include such terms and conditions that promote best overall
value and allow responses to be evaluated accordingly. This includes but not
limited to such considerations as price (including discounts and prompt payment
terms), quality, delivery (including response time), service, and past
performance.
If all the terms and conditions of the request have been met and the outcome of
the evaluation still results in a tie, staff is authorized to conduct a lottery. In the
case of two identical bids a coin toss will decide. In the case of more than two
identical bids, a draw(lottery) will decide.
The results of the lottery are to be recorded and witnessed by all parties present
and the award shall be reported in accordance with the requirements of this
policy.
1.11 Evaluation of proposals
An Evaluation Committee shall be established for Requests for Proposals. The
size of the Evaluation Committee shall be reflective of the complexity and dollar
value of the assignment and must be have a minimum of two members.
Committee members must have the relevant experience to evaluate proponents'
submissions. The Evaluation Committee shall provide a written report
summarizing the results of its review and rationale for its recommendations.
All Requests for Proposals are to include clear specifications and evaluation
criteria, terms and conditions that can be applied in a fair and consistent manner
to all respondents.
1.12 Vendor Debriefings
All vendors are entitled to a formal or informal debriefing, upon written request
made to the Authorized Buyer, to obtain feedback on why their bid or proposal
was not successful.
1.13 Vendor Complaints
TRCA is committed to the highest standards of integrity with respect to dealing
with vendor complaints. Complaints shall be handled with fairness and equity
for all participants in a Tender, Quotation or Proposal call.
59
All vendor complaints, whether addressed a member or the staff, are to be
referred to the Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate for
resolution.
Objections to a recommendation for award must be in writing. The Chief
Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall review the
objection and determine, with legal advice where necessary, whether the
objection is material i.e. it is not frivolous or vexatious or solely related to a
review of any listed irregularities as defined in this policy or is not
non-responsive i.e. it is not deficient in meeting the requirements of the call.
Where the objection is determined not to be material, the making of the award
shall proceed in accordance with this policy.
Where the objection is determined to be material and cannot be resolved, the
award shall be made by the TRCA in accordance with this policy. In such case,
the Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall report to
the Executive Committee with respect to the recommendations for award. The
Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall inform the
vendor of his/her right to make a deputation before the Board and shall advise
the vendor who to contact at the TRCA for further information on the deputation
process. Upon hearing the deputation and considering the staff report, the
Executive Committee shall make a recommendation to the Authority with
respect to the award.
1.14 Non - Competitive Procurement Process
A non-competitive procurement process shall only be used if one or more of the
following conditions apply and a process of negotiation is undertaken to obtain
the best value in the circumstances for the TRCA. Authorized Buyers are
authorized to enter into negotiations without formal competitive bids, under the
following circumstances:
1. The goods and services are only available from one source or one
supplier by reason of:
• A statutory or market based monopoly
• A fluctuating market prevents the TRCA from obtaining price
protection or owing to market conditions, required goods or
services are in short supply
• Existence of exclusive rights (patent, copyright or licence)
• Need for compatibility with goods and services previously
acquired and there are no reasonable alternatives, substitutes or
accommodations
• Need to avoid violating warranties and guarantees where service
is required
60
2. An attempt to purchase the required goods and services has been made in
good faith using a competitive method and has failed to identify a
successful supplier.
3. When the extension or reinstatement of an existing contract would prove
most cost-effective or beneficial. The extension shall not exceed one
year.
4. The goods and services are required as a result of an emergency, which
would not reasonably permit the use of the other methods permitted.
5. The required goods and services are to be supplied by a particular vendor
or supplier having special knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that
cannot be provided by any other supplier.
6. Any other sole or single source purchase permitted under the provisions
of this policy including those noted in Schedule '13'.
1.15 Cooperative Purchasing
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate may enter
into arrangements with other public bodies on a co-operative or joint venture
basis where there are economic advantages and where the best interests of the
TRCA would be served in so doing; providing that under such arrangements the
method of acquisition used is a competitive method similar to that described in
this policy; and the awarding and reporting of such contracts is in accordance
with the authorization and limits set out in this policy.
1.16 Vendor Sureties and Performance
TRCA reserves the right to request surety deposits and to determine the form
and amount.
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall
maintain records relating to vendor performance or non-performance. The
information shall be used to supplement a pre-qualification process, to justify an
award to other than the low bidder where it can be demonstrated that such
records are part of the evaluation process and criteria or to ensure contract
compliance
61
1.17 Sustainability Requirements
In accordance with its mandate and vision, the TRCA employs leading edge
"sustainability" standards in purchasing. The TRCA approach is two-pronged,
involving mandated purchase of certified products where approved under the
Sustainability Management System, and encouraging consideration of a product
or company's environmental and/or sustainability performance in areas not
prescribed under the first designation.
As a minimum, Authorized Buyers must follow the Mandatory Green Product
Procurement Listing for purchases of products contained in that listing, and for
other products and services, other procurement related SMS policies including
green energy, facility upgrades to meet LEED certification or other criteria, and
green fleet policy. SMS procurement requirements must be met unless the
expressed consent of the Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or
designate is obtained and rationale for variance is recorded.
For products not included in the Mandatory Green Product Procurement
Listing, purchasers must consider the following in their product purchases as
per recommendations made in the GIPPER(Governments Incorporation
Procurement Policies to Reduce Refuse) Guide to Environmental Purchasing:
a. Limited packaging
b. Recycled content
c. Locally sourced
d. Non-toxic
e. Energy efficient
f. Recyclable or reusable at end of life span
g. Is the product really needed
In addition, the TRCA will consider corporate sustainability and evidence
thereof in awarding consulting and other contracts. Authorized Buyers should
consider any or all the following:
a. Evidence of social performance, globally, nationally and locally
b. Evidence of corporate environmental stewardship
c. Evidence of proficiencies in delivering sustainable solutions
d. Experience in delivering sustainable solutions
62
1.18 Disposal of Goods
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate is authorized
to dispose of surplus or obsolete goods (except those goods covered by the
TRCA De-accession Policy) by using them in other departments or, if no longer
useful for TRCA purposes, arranging for their disposal in a cost effective and
efficient manner and on such terms as are likely to achieve the highest net
revenue or benefit or the reduction or avoidance of net cost from the disposition.
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall
prescribe any forms and maintain records of such dispositions.
All goods of the TRCA, that have become surplus to its needs are to be disposed
of by public auction, trade-in, exchange, quotation or such other methods as may
be approved by the Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer.
The opportunity to purchase surplus goods may be given to other public
agencies in such manner as may be prescribed by purchasing procedures.
Authorization and limits shall be in accordance with Schedule 'A'.
Disposal of Real Property
The TRCA purchasing policy does not apply to the disposal of real property.
The TRCA policy and procedures governing the disposal of TRCA land and real
property shall apply.
1.20 Revenue from Use or Sale of other Assets
The TRCA purchasing policy applies to revenue generating contracts including
but not limited to the use of TRCA land to deposit soil and the sale of TRCA
timber rights and gravel deposits in which case the vendor whose bid or
proposal meets terms and conditions and offers the highest dollar value will be
selected. The purchasing objectives, processes, methods, authorities and limits
outlined in this policy and Schedule `A' apply.
1.21 Prohibitions and Ethics
No personal purchases shall be made for any employee or Authority member
unless specifically authorized by the Authority.
No employee, or Authority member, shall purchase goods and services on behalf
of the TRCA except as may be provided for in this policy.
63
No employee, or Authority member, shall be permitted to supply goods and
services to the TRCA unless specifically authorized by the Authority.
No employee, or Authority member, shall bid on the sale of goods except those
disposed of by public auction.
No requirement for goods or services shall be divided to avoid the requirements
of this policy.
Vendors retained to prepare specifications for goods or services shall not be
permitted to respond to a request for quotations, tenders or proposals on those
services. This does not preclude a vendor from providing other assistance to the
TRCA by way of contract compliance or administration.
TRCA Code of Conduct shall apply to this policy.
1.22 Review of Purchasing Policy and Implementation of Administrative Procedures
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall
undertake a comprehensive review of this policy at least every five (5)years and
report to the Authority accordingly.
The Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall
prepare, maintain and approve administrative procedures to implement this
policy.
64
SCHEDULE `A'
PURCHASING METHODS, LIMITS AND AUTHORIZATION
PURCHASING METHOD LIMITS AUTHORIZATION
TO AWARD
Request for Tender—See 1.4 Over$200,000 Authority
$100,000 -$200,000 Executive Committee
Request for Quotation—See 1.4 Up to $100,000 Chief Administrative Officer/
Informal Request for Quotation—See 1.4 Up to $10,000 SecretaiN--Treasurer or
designate
Request for Proposal—See 1.4 Over$200,000 Authority
$100,000 -$200,000 Executive Committee
Up to $100,000 Chief Administrative Officer/
SecretaiN--Treasurer or
designate
No requirement for competition but best Up to $1MO Chief Administrative Officer/
value to be obtained—See 1.3 SecretaiN--Treasurer or
designate
Non Competitive Procurement(Sole source/ Authority
Negotiation)—See 1.14 Over$200,000 Executive Committee
$50,000 -$200,000 Chief Administrative Officer/
Note: In the case of an emergency over Up to $50,000 SecretaiN--Treasurer or
$50,000 the Chief Administrative designate
Officer/SecretaiN--Treasurer is authorized to
act immediately and report to the Executive
Committee at the earliest opportunity
ACCEPTABLE BID OR PROPOSAL LIMITS AUTHORITIES
Lowest acceptable bid or highest ranked Over$200,000 Authority
proposal not being accepted for any reasons $25,000 -$200,000 Executive Committee
other than those specified in 1.8 Up to $25,000 Chief Administrative Officer/
SecretaiN--Treasurer or
designate
DISPOSAL OF GOODS LIMITS AUTHORITIES
Value of items (estimated market value at Over$200,000 Authority
time of disposal) $50,000 -$200,000 Executive Committee
Up to $50,000 Chief Administrative Officer/
SecretaiN--Treasurer or
designate
Notes and interpretations:
1. In accordance Nvith Section 13 Authorization and Limits,the Chief Administrative
Officer/Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall maintain a list of designated employees
and their respective authorities and limitations.
2. If the loNvest acceptable bid as a result of a Request for Tender is less than $100,000,
authorization for the aNvard shall still be made by Executive Committee.
3. If the loNvest acceptable bid as a result of a Request for Quotation is more than
$100,000 authorization for aNvard shall be made by Executive Committee.
4. If the loNvest bidder is not selected, a report shall be provided to the Executive
Committee for their information at the next available meeting.
65
SCHEDULE `B'
GOODS AND SERVICES NOT SUBJECT TO THIS POLICY
The following items are not subject to this policy. Unless otherwise stated in this policy or any
administrative procedures, a purchase order is not required to process payment. Sole source
vendors are subject to the provisions of the purchasing policy and the issuance of a purchase
order. The items listed here are subject to such other policies, procedures and approvals as
TRCA requires.
1. Utilities
Electricity
Water and sewage charges
Natural gas
Basic telephone/data/internet/long distance service
Basic television cable service
2. Training and Education
Membership fees-Professional Associations
Magazine and Periodical Subscriptions
Training Registration (except where bulk training is arranged through a bidding process)
Conference and Seminars
3. Refundable employee expenses
Meal allowances
Travel and transportation expenses
Promotional allowance
Hotel accommodations
Mileage
4. General Expenses
Property Taxes
Postage(Canada Post)
Licenses, e.g. vehicles
Charges to or from other government agencies including contracts with Federal, Provincial or
Municipal governments Agencies, Boards, Commissions
Grants to organizations
Land purchases/expropriation
Land registry fees
Refunds
Legal settlements
Grievance payments
Experts and witnesses for civil actions or administrative hearings
Arbitrators and Mediators
TRCA catered functions and accommodations
66
5. Petty cash replenishment
6. Payments to past and current employees
All salaries, wages and benefits due to any person in the employ of the TRCA.
All retirement allowances and other mandatory payments due to any person previously in the
employ of the TRCA.
7. Government payments
All accounts for fees and levies payable to the federal, provincial or other municipal government,
or to any agency, board or commission thereof.
8. Debt
All accounts for payments of principal or interest on debentures, loans or overdrafts, including
foreign exchange in accordance with TRCA investment policy.
9. Pension deductions and contributions
All accounts relating to employee pension deductions and employer pension contributions in
respect of the salaries and wages to those persons who are paid by or employed by the TRCA,
and which are payable in respect of any duly authorized registered pension plan on behalf of the
respective employee.
10. Handmade products produced by TRCA employees for sale at TRCA gift shops .
11. Research and special projects undertaken by qualified Community College/University staff
and/or students acting on behalf of their respective institution .
67
SCHEDULE `C'
ADDITIONAL PURCHASING POLICIES ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITY FROM
TIME TO TIME
POLICY DESCRIPTION DATE OF APPROVAL
68
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:13 p.m., on Friday, April 8, 2011.
David Barrow Brian Denney
Chair Secretary-Treasurer
/ks
69
khk
01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #2/11
October 14, 2011
The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #2/11, was held in the Victoria Room, Black
Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 14, 2011. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the
meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
PRESENT Arrival Time Departure Time
Maria Augimeri 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member
David Barrow 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member
Bob Callahan 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member
ABSENT
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair
Dave Ryan Member
RES.#C9/11 - MINUTES
Moved by: Bob Callahan
Seconded by: David Barrow
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on April 8, 2011, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, in regard to
item BAAB7.1 - 2012 Preliminary Capital Estimates and Operating Budget Guidelines.
RES.#C10/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
70
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#C11/11 - 2012 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL ESTIMATES AND OPERATING
BUDGET GUIDELINES
Recommends approval of 2012 preliminary capital estimates and
operating budget guidelines
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the preliminary estimates for
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2012 - 2021 participating
municipality capital budgets, as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved for submission to
the respective municipalities;
THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget make provision for a cost
of living adjustment of three per cent (3%) effective in April, 2012;
THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget include municipal levy
increases consistent with the guidelines determined by the respective participating
municipality;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the 2012 preliminary estmates to the City
of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, the Town of Mono and
the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio in accordance with their respective submission
schedules.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA has begun the process of submitting preliminary estimates to its municipal funding
partners. The process began in May and submissions have been made to staff of the various
participating municipalities commencing in July. TRCA staff has met with staff of the regions of
Peel, Durham and York and the City of Toronto to present TRCA budget requirements.
Meetings with Peel, York and Durham included representatives of the other conservation
authorities which have jurisdiction in those regions.
Meetings with the participating municipalities to finalize the budget will occur over the next five
months. Each jurisdiction has its own unique process to be followed for the budget
submissions which ultimately must be approved by the respective municipal councils.
Staff is presenting the summary level information on the capital budget requests submitted to
each jurisdiction. Staff has not provided details of the operating estimates because the detail is
subject to considerable change between now and the end of February when TRCA has the
results of the funding decisions of its municipal partners and TRCA's 2011 year end results.
71
RATIONALE
Operating Budget
Staff is in process of completing the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget. As
always, staff will recommend a final budget in which expenditures are equal to the revenues
including revenue from operations, grants and municipal levy. Municipal levy accounts for
about one third of the annual operating budget.
Expenditures
At this time, staff estimate an increase in expenditures of 4.9% or about$1.7 million. Pressures
on the operating budget include an increase in OMERS contributions of 1% (about$285,000),
health benefit cost increases of 1.8%, property insurance costs, rising energy costs as well as
annualization of salary changes in 2011.
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)
TRCA salary and wage COLA adjustments have been:
• 2009 0%
• 2010 2%
• 2011 0%
• in 2012, staff recommends a 3% COLA effective the first pay in April of 2012. This will cost
an estimated $439,000. The effect of the 3% increase averaged over 5 years is about 1%
annually. This is well below most municipal increases over the same time frame.
Preliminary estimates provide for maintenance of existing programs and services at the 2011
level of service. Any additional new services to be introduced in 2012 will be funded from
non-municipal levy sources. Additional staffing is for the most part in area of seasonal and
part-time staff or in programs that have additional, non-levy funding.
Revenues
MUNICIPAL LEVY
As a separate report, staff has described a proposed change to the traditional funding
arrangements which would result in additional municipal levy from the Regions. Provision is
made for a modest levy increase in 2012 of$225,000. To date, staff at the City of Toronto are
recommending a flat lined TRCA levy (0%) in 2012. Staff at the regions of Peel and York are
considering increases in 4 to 4.5% range. The guideline at the Region of Durham for
conservation authority operating funds is 2%.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES
As a separate report, and at the direction of the Authority, staff has recommended a program to
increase planning and development fees to achieve 100% recovery of costs to process
development applications. In 2012, the preliminary estimates make provision for a 5.8%
increase in planning fees. If the Authority approves the planning fee proposal, staff project that
additional funds will be available and those projections can incorporated in the 2012 final
budget.
72
CONSERVATION (THE LIVING CITY) FOUNDATION
In previous budgets, TRCA has relied on up to $800,000 in unrestricted revenue from the
Foundation. The 2012 operating estimates include no funding from the Foundation which is a
pressure since in past years such funding has been included (although not realized). In future,
staff will apply unrestricted funds from the Foundation in the year following the year in which the
funds are secured. These funds will be applied first to offset any cumulative deficit.
OPERATING REVENUES
In total, about$1 million of additional operating revenue from planning fees, interest earnings,
various parks fees and other programs is included. This represents an increase of about 4.4%
over 2011. These estimates will be refined when staff complete the 2011 year end results.
PROVINCIAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Staff aniticipate that once again there will be no increase in provincial transfers estimated at
$846,000. This issue has persisted for more than 10 years. Conservation Ontario continues to
meet with the province and lobby for additional funding.
ROUGE NATIONAL PARK
In 2011, the Government of Canada announced support for creation of the Rouge National
Park. Representatives of Parks Canada have met with the Rouge Park Alliance, Rouge Park
staff and TRCA staff to initiate the process to create the National Park. Staff is hopeful that
some level of funding for this work may be available in 2012 but nothing is budgeted.
Capital Budgets
Staff has completed the municipal portion of the 2012-2021 capital program. Participating
municipalities usually require that TRCA provide 10 year capital budget projections and each
municipality has their own requirements and format for this information. Obviously, most
attention is paid to the 2012 and 2013 capital programs.
Attachment 1 includes summary tables for each of the following: City of Toronto, regions of
Peel, York and Durham. Staff prepares for the City and Peel and York Regions, budget binders
which include detailed information on each capital project and program. These binders are in
the process of being finalized and will be available to Members who require them.
CITY OF TORONTO
The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs which meet the
existing City of Toronto targets. The City funds TRCA capital programs from both debt and
water reserve funding, in roughly 50/50 proportions. The City annual debt guideline for TRCA is
$3 million and has remained unchanged for many years. The portion of the capital from water
reserves has increased marginally, about 2 to 3% annually.
Funding from the City remains inadequate to meet critical state of good repair and
infrastructure requirements of TRCA's work within the City. Erosion sites, shoreline protection
and repairs to waterfront parks require additional commitment from the City. Accordingly, in
2010, staff prepared a prioritized list of critical infrastructure needs which are additional to the
core funding request. This list was extensive and reflected the fact the capital funding from the
City has been inadequate in terms of asset maintenance for many years.
73
In 2011, the City of Toronto agreed to fund an additional $5 million in critical erosion and flood
management works. This work is being completed and TRCA asked for the same amount in
2012 to continue to deal with the back log of state of good repair projects in the City. The City
determined that$2 million could be made available for erosion work on the Meadowcliffe
project and flood work in Hogg's Hollow, although this amount has yet to be finalized.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. York Region
guidelines provide for an increase in core programs of no more than 4.5%. Staff has met this
guideline.
In the 2012 submission, staff has included a list of priority projects reflecting needs that extend
beyond the core funding. The Region has made a significant investment in conservation
programs but there is still much to be done. TRCA staff anticipate making a submission to the
Region's Finance and Administration Committee to request support for these additional
projects.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. Peel Region
guidelines provide for some increase in key programs and require TRCA to submit a rationale
to demonstrate needs beyond the guidelines. The 2012 capital program is based on
estimates submitted as part of the 2011 program.
Staff made a presentation to Regional Council in June of 2011 outlining accomplishments of the
climate change adaptation and mitigation programs from 2007 to 2010. Staff will do a further
presentation to Regional Council in October describing the 2012 program.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
Capital funding for Durham Region totals$825,000. Included is $125,000 as Durham's share of
a pooled capital program for groundwater management in which TRCA holds funds from
participating municipalities spent at the discretion of a steering committee of regional works
and conservation authority staff. TRCA's capital funding from Durham is $700,000 which has
remained the same since about 2004.
The 2012-2021 Durham submission includes significant increases to meet the backlog of needs
in Durham. Staff of the five conservation authorities have met with Planning Department and
Finance Department staff to consider growing unmet needs of the five conservation authorities.
Staff also made a presentation to the Region Planning Committee describing the work of the
five conservation authorities and its importance to the growth of the Region. Staff has recently
been advised that Durham Regional Council approved 2012 budget guidelines that have once
again frozen capital funding to the five conservation authorities and recommended a 2%
increase in operating funds.
2011 Projected Year End Results
Staff has completed variance reports to the end of August, 2011 and projecting revenue and
expenditures to year end. The projection is that 2011 actuals will be very close to the
approved budget. Less than budgeted revenue due to lower attendance at some parks and
Black Creek Pioneer Village is being off set by expenditure reductions. Interest revenues are
slightly higher than budgeted.
74
In terms of capital, the Petticoat Creek Pool project is on track: $3 million project of which $1.2
million will be spent in 2011 to complete the work. The funding shortfall in 2011 is projected to
be about $400,000 to bring the total funding shortfall to$1 million. This amount will be repaid
from Petticoat pool revenues as reported and agreed to by the Authority in approving the
project. Overall, staff project that the capital budget will be on target and should produce the
$300,000 surplus to be used to offset a portion of the cumulative deficit.
Cumulative Deficit Position
As of December 31, 2010, the cumulative "cash basis" deficit for operating and capital was$2.4
million of which $1.7 million related to general operations and $600,000 to the Petticoat creek
pool project. $75,000 related to the final payment toward the capital cost of the Restoration
Services Centre building which will be paid in full in 2011.
TRCA has no debt. The cash flow position has always been very positive and this continues in
2011. Based on the projected year end results, the cumulative "cash basis" deficit will be
about$2.5 million of which $1 million will be related to the repayment of the Petticoat Creek
Pool project and $1.5 million would be related to operations.
As of December 31, 2010, the book value of TRCA tangible assets was$518.2 million and the
unamortized balance or net book value is $402.2 million.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Following year end, the 2012 - 2021 capital budget can be finalized and will include the
municipal capital projects as approved by the respective participating municipalities as well as
all other capital projects such as Waterfront Toronto work and land acquisition.
The operating estimates will become final following year end at which time staff can determine
the impact of reserve contributions and any decisions made by the Authority relating to the
proposed 100% recovery of planning and development fees. With respect to the latter, staff has
included a modest increase in planning fees of 5.8% and will apply new fees if approved. Also,
staff await direction from the Authority that the 3% COLA is to be implemented and that the
proposed changes to the municipal levy formula are to proceed.
Staff is prepared to describe in detail the capital projects and programs included in the
submissions at the meeting of the Board or at the Authority on October 28th. Approval of the
preliminary estimates by the Authority enables staff to go forward with discussions knowing that
the Chair and members are in support of the proposed projects and programs subject to the
funding capacity of the respective municipal jurisdictions.
Report prepared by: Jim Dlllane, extension 6292
Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Jim Dillane, extension 6292
Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca
Date: October 05, 2011
Attachments: 4
75
00 Attachment 1
z
O
w
O
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cfl (fl Mo0oCflMti LO 00 C) 0 o CY)
N _� _m _o � aoNaoao M 00 (.0 O O ao
J " N Efl Efl Efl E3 E3 MM — Nf} LO O E3 CY) CY)
Cli
LU N
Efl Efl
W >,
a =
O0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0
O aiMMCDCDCDMNM LO (.0 C) 0 0
M It M M It ti ti M M M — LO O O O
" Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl D, � M � Efl D, MD, 00
d O
LU
V1 f0
O c
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
Q d LONoLOoLOCoCfl 'T o T o — o o LO
M T M M T CO I� — T Co LO LO O O ti
Z � � Efl Efl Efl D, Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl
CO Efl Efl
H O
�+
O =
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Efl O O Efl O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O
O Cfl O Ln O O 6r M ti O N O O O N
N M I- M CO 't M M M I� O O O Cfl
E �' Efl Efl Efl NEf3 Efl Efl Efl Ef3 CY) 67
7 INS �
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Efl O O Efl O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
M Cfl M M M M M M M LO O O O O LO
I- O N ti N LO M It M 0) O O O O 0)
Efl Efl Efl Efl N Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl ECY) Efl Cfl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Efl O Efl Efl Efl O
° O ti M M O O M M M LO LO
I� M N Cfl N M O 'T 'T N N
Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl N Efl Co Co
CD
CO
U
L
� L U
O — Q
O O U w
(6 M
Co
Ld U 7 0
OL Qom.
` Uj � a� a�i (n = o
w Cu cmacL
N O._ ca cn
CL o N U
G� f0 O N L O L C= 3: ,- 2
y CO U N N L O CO
d C2 Co
N N N U N U U O V N O O
L > O p > �. �. O 7 > N CO
Co
CL
> zz � W > fn S � Q O o ai i X U
V — Co Cl) U � o ) w
Attachment 2
000000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
000000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
000000000 v_ 0LOo0000000 r� r� orb
N O Or� 7 r� O O) N 07 O L170 00 r,N to 0) ro Oi f`
p O to 7 W W O 61 N W f` M c0 7 0 f� N N 7 co O)
N N W r 7 N M N EA EA 7 co[A EA LQ co o r`
EA EA EA EA EA EA 6A ER EA EA(Al EA r N tD to M
(Al ER EA ER ER EA r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O O O O O 7 O N W O O O O O O f` f` O f
N OOf� 7706) N tD O N 70 o r- N to M Lo coM
p O N to 7 c0 W O 6) O Co r- M c0 7 O r: N N 7 co M Co co
N N W r 7 N M N EA EA r 7 M[A EA LQ r` to a
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA a EA EA EA EA EA N tD to M
EA ER EA ER ER EA r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
0 0 0 O O O O O c 7 O N oo O O O O O O r` r` O r
r 00 r- N to O6) r- r O N 70 r 00 r- 7 to co M 7M
O O to� r N W O fI W f� M c0 7 0 r: N N 7 co M r Lo
N N r r W r 7 N M r (Al r(Al r r 7 r co[A EA LQ r` f�a
EA(Al(Al(Al EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA N tD to M
EA to EA ER ER EA r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
000000000 7 O NCo 000000 f` f` Orw
O r- N O N 7 0 O O 7 M to a tD N r
p 6) N c0 r- N W 6) m W f� M c0 7 O r; M N 7 tD r` co
N 7 6 077 M 0 (Al (Al 7 M 6 EA cm w rDM
EA EA EA EA r EA EA EA� EA EA EA EA EA r N tD c0 M
EA ER EA ER ER EA r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O O O O O 7 O N oO O O O O O O r` r` O r
I'- 6) O O M N N N c6 N 7 0 7 0 0 N N to r` Lo r-N
p r- N c0 to M O W to M W f� M c0 M O f� c0 N 7 co N 7 r`
N 7 f� O N 7 M 07 EA (Al r 7 r(Al EA M M N W
EA EA EA EA-EA EA EA M EA V3 EA EA EA N w to N
EA ER EA to to EA r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O O O O O 7 O N Co O O O O O O r` r` O r
O W O rD ro to 6) N O O N 7 0 r- O O to to O O r-r`
p 6) N c0 M N f�c0 c0 o r- M c0 N O r: c0 N 7 co M co N
N 7 f� 0 7 7 M 07 EA EA 7 r EA EA M N r�O
EA EA EA EA r EA EA EA M EA V3 EA EA EA N tD to M
(Al ER (Al ER ER EA r
N �
O
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O to tD tD ow
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O N oO O O O O O O N N N O N
C N O N O 6) O W W N O N 7 0 O O r- O to 6) v tD to N
N O N N O 6) N N 7 tD W r: M c0 N O r: c0 N 7 N O tD co
O N r r f� 6) 7 7 M f` EA r[A r r 7 r r[A EA M r` a 7 tb
N EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA M EA V3 EA EA EA EA N tD (6 04
d ER EA to ER EA r
IL
0
c o 0 0 o o 0 0 o o o o 0 0 o o o 0 0 o o o o o o
0 o00oo00oo o o00000000co m m o(D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O N o O O O O O O N N N O N
N 7ON O f� f�f� W W O N 7O (0006) W c06) o r` 7
p c0 7 N r- N M 7 o W M c0 r 0 0 c0 7 N N w 6)ro
N 7 to 6) 7 7 M o EA EA r 7 N r EA(Al co O LQ M 0
y (Al EA EA(Al EA EA EA EA M EA EA EA EA EA [A M tD to N
F ER EA ER ER EA r
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c0 tD tD O
O N
CJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O N W O O O O O O N N N N
W M N 0 7 N M N N N M O N 7 0 O O O O f� c0 N M tD M 07
N 777 N O co 6 f� Mto r O r- f� 7N 07 C r�
J N 7 to W 7 7 M M EA EA 7 6 r EA EA M N tD O f`
Q EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA M EA V3 EA EA EA EA M to c0 N
F ER EA ER ER EA r
Q o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
U o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o m m m o tD
W C w 0 0 0 O O O O O O It O LQ W O O O 0 0 0 LQ N N O N
y 6) O a M f`7 M O a 0 0 0 a W tD tD 07 a r` M O
O N T W M a N W 6) M co r` M tD r 0 0 v N O N r`
M (D 6) M co M M ER ER a r` r ER ER M N M W
U O0 6q ER ER ER EA ER EA ER M ER ER ER ER ER r M tD c0 N
LL N d ER ER ER ER EA rER
0
W
J
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
Q H 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c0 tD tD O
F t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O N W O O O O O O N N N O N N
` 6) O7 co r-70 co O N 70007 o c0 to 6) a N 6)
W M7 7 W 6) 007 W r: Mc0 r OO7 7N O O NtD
Q N L M to W M M M r EA EA 7 f�r EA EA M N I 7 W
LL EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA M EA V3 EA EA EA [A M to c0 N
0 N ER (Al ER ER EA
LL zo!�
� O
y N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c0 tD tD O tD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O N N N O N
7 N M ro 6) O M O r O N 7 to N O N 6) N to O g tD O tD
Co N W co oo ro ro N N 6 f� co 7 0 N (D 7 7 co N tD O oc
r co to W co co N N EA EA EA co to r EA EA co O N to W
p EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA M EA V3 EA EA r EA M tD N r
N Ey EA Ey Ey EA r
U
C
U ESZ �
E
C a)
O
° ° Q
LL
L U E U � a)
N 6 U
D Oi Q .T-
Q (7 0
a> c o .4 0 0
a U) °- o c a E ~
m cc D - .E `m a°i c o o_O
E" a°i :" vEi w. U > °d c `m win y
a�i o T a) c ai o Q d U o � o)
3 m m E ° ? � U n m m E w a J
y m � m �U ° m 0 w o- o Q � �J J a� c y U Q
C cn °Z ._ o m o ° .6 w > m E o a o o ~ E o a y
Z °� 3.� = m m o E cA = U v° o o m m .o U E OF
.4 0 .° LL °).0 a) Z I r v° v° Q w Q U Z
Q 'p�p o in °)O j .c) r _� rn E m c c o c c F r N
' a � c7lo zcn =LLLu �LLYaO � U =UU �a U O d-(D
tG
Attachment 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0o O
0000000 °
00000 0 0 00
O o 0
.
m e o M m �°o �,r
� e
LO
a
000000000
o 0 0 0 0
0000000 00 000 0 00 0
O
N o -
o 0 0 o r r
M
VT
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O o 0 0 0
N o r o 0 0 ° m � 0 0
m � 0 0 0
� � � ° � rn o o r
`'r a
VT
0 0 0 0 0 o
0 0 0 0 0 0 °o
0 0 0 0 0 °
0 0 0 O
N M v ry ry o 0 0 o r M
tt7
v
VT
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 �° o o m 0 0 0 0
m 0 o O NL6
e e <° rn rn rn o ry m
O � v
M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o p
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0
O
a
�[7
i % M
VT
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
, - 0 0 0
o �° m o o �° �° � m
O °
m e rn m � e m ,°° O o 0 0
r o o n u
v M o v ry o 0 0 0 o r o
M
M
VT
ry o 0 0 0
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 n n
0
0
m
o r o
v Q
m
s ss, r
e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» e» 40 e» e» e» e»
m U
0
v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m O o 0 0
ry m M ry m rn r o
M v M N o 0
m M ry M m v ry o 0 0 0 0
< -
o. fly; C
m
a
U O
0
M
Y 5
- 69
00000000000 O O O O 00 O
00000000000 O O O O 00 O
0 0 0 0 C C C C C C C O O O O O to to
i7r 00 LO O L O I- LO W N N O O O O O N O
O I- CO N O N V V h 0 0 0 LO to h O
` N — M r- V N t0 tM N — t0 N t0
N M
fA fA fA fA fA fA 69 fA fA fA tR fA fA fA fA tR tR tR
m�
e o
in U
0 0 0 0 0 0
i,
A
:.
o
o
s
U c s m
Milt
WW
z E
°¢ o
c m u m
°m U
o
K
r ° 0-1 c m
- O 3 o w o m m otl O .o
A
0
m m C'l LL Z N o U h
: r o o 3 0 m m m m
-
m
m
�
E
m
OO o El O F Wl U
Attachment 4
ml IM
mm mm ml Im
0 0 0
T o 00
00 00 0 0 ��,
E ° 0 00
0 0 �°v v�°m�°H i°
n� m o � � �e o
o
O N
Q O
~N
0 0 0 0 0
w 6 0 0 0 0
O
Q 6 6 V 0 0 0 Fl
IN 11 IN
IN
N a`
m
a
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
N a N a N a
ti ti ti
y y a a a
m m m
E E
E �' E 2�w E E U E E T ° E
I - 5 m z zQ z E y @ o
ma xNR w _ y -
"o o E y
16 8 a C Ew 'u va E�� ��¢ RU o m
E ^ x c ,
Z o @ g v m E E c U C E a P E c
`e, dt ,a to, o.EE
v
!4�r
tn 7
o o E o E( o o(7 `o
q "�
c o h o 0
E�F�oc7>° ,c r� ¢ 5�w¢
79
0 0
m m
OO�n vS m �n 'nom � o �� MM M •- '
T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� mmo ro o �oo�n o 0 0o vin '
E 000 �N �ono�nno
O E N N
o m m
O N N a a
O
O E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r O
0 0 0
w o 0 0 0 0 0 0
n o m�
tD�n ww
n N V n m N V N m m N m m�m m tyi
N d
a a a
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E 0 0 0 0 0 00 0o m o
Nm ml
N 4 N 4
o m o o o «
E
0
o E o Z / E o E m 19 o U ¢ z
5
m �mF m '%%
a` ol E
o o a
E2 E m o E m
m E o °E o>
m E o c o N m m o L° m c N _ m
1. E E °— E O1 m U m o o 0 0 E m
m ` '� E E o m Z a m m y m m E c'-O y
Na /i�^ L°a U a�iK o f
E m°' q,L a�L 8� 8mx ��a m"m a� .1. i �
C C. 3 E o E �° m F x° m F F C
E.2
m m 4 C U o
y>y a E E
1 U 3 3 U>
omm�m'
z
80
0 0 0
`m c�
cD
WA
NN IN
c� C�---c�o E �
O N
O`O
~N
O O
O �
N d
m
a
m [ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,8 0 0 0 0 0
It
IN mm mm
It
U
°o S
E E E
IN mm mm
oil
Im NN
N a N a N a
a a N N N ~
m m
z
U'
E
E m
E m
E m E x o °
E x`11 w =E E m E E E
Z W E m- E a E u Z ° ° Z
n c
° E a L� `m E E O1 _
a y
° m y
o 'oU E o a` @ @ o
ST ❑ m Ego o.Q a� m a _ ° m a m
� w c E E o ° E a °IFEN
U
r K m a o d LL K m(7 d' m 2V
/jF w� E-O ° m o amp m m C -
J E x a` °
F-41A mE
E 12
'.� mc7w
81
RES.#C12/11 - PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY FUNDING
New Municipal Funding Arrangements Policy. Presents new funding
arrangements policy for consideration by participating municipalities.
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THAT item BAAB7.2 - Participating Municipality Funding be referred to the Executive
Committee.
CARRIED
RES.#C13/11 - PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY
100% cost recovery for Planning, Permitting and Environmental
Assessment Fee Schedule - adjustments for 2012-2013.
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: Bob Callahan
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has established
administration fees to provide service delivery for municipalities and the development
industry for the review of a wide range of applications requiring environmental planning
technical expertise and regulatory approvals;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff monitor the level of service demands for planning, ecology,
engineering, hydrogeology, geotechnical and compliance reviews and report on an
annual basis on the implications of cost recovery;
AND WHEREAS the Authority has directed staff to report back with an assessment of full
cost recovery related to the service delivery for comprehensive planning and permitting
review operations;
AND WHEREAS TRCA's assessment of service delivery adheres to the provincial Ministry
of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority
Fees, TRCA's Fee Policy Guideline 2009 and provides a range of services according to
TRCA's Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
AUTHORITY THAT the cost recovery recommendations, inclusive of the Proposed Fee
Schedule for 2012 be endorsed, and that staff be instructed to consult with the
development industry, the Province of Ontario and TRCA's municipalities prior to final
approval as per the provincial and TRCA guidelines;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the comments received
during the consultation process, and provide recommendations for approval of the final
form of schedules, effective January 1, 2012.
CARRIED
82
BACKGROUND
TRCA staff has reviewed and monitored the level of service for plan and permitting review over
a period of over eight (8) years, and has periodically adjusted the administrative fee schedule to
reflect changes in volume, scale and complexity of project submissions and to build efficient
service delivery over time. Ongoing streamlining of the plan review process has been a priority
and refining the fee schedule commensurate with the specific assignment has been part of all
negotiations with the development industry and municipalities over the last few years. TRCA's
last substantial fee adjustment was approved in 2008. At that time, a fee schedule was
approved that made changes in the order of 15 to 20%to main charges. At the same time,
TRCA introduced a new major review fee to be applied to Master Environmental Servicing Plan
(MESPs) technical reviews. This fee schedule was controversial with the development industry
and took a two-year period of working sessions and negotiations to reach a mutually
acceptable MESP payment approach with the Building, Industry and Land Development
Association (BILD) and TRCA. TRCA's 2010-2011 fee schedule incorporated a modest
inflationary increase of 2% respectively for each year, and the MESP fee requirements were
implemented.
A provincial Omnibus Bill was passed in January 1996 which empowered conservation
authorities (CA) to collect fees for services approved by the Minister of Natural Resources
(MNR). Conservation authorities are entitled to set rates, charge and collect fees for services
rendered. The document entitled Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation
Authority Fees (June 1997) included in the MNR Manual sets guidelines for fee collection. The
document states that CA fee structures should be designed to recover, but not exceed, the
costs associated with administering and delivering the services on a program basis. The
manual also states that setting fees are dependent on the complexity of applications and the
level of effort required to administer the application.
In 2007, the Province established the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee (CALC) to
address issues related to planning and permitting mandate and process, and fee structures
across the CAs in the Province. CALC includes representatives from the ministries of Natural
Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Energy and Infrastructure, Conservation
Ontario, select CA's, development industry, NGOs and municipal sectors. CALC produced a
policies and procedures document in 2010 to assist CAs, municipalities and the development
community to understand the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the planning and permitting
process. CALC has also conducted a review of fee schedule standards and cost recovery
across all CAs in Ontario, and is assessing potential updates to the 1997 MNR fee guideline
document. Conservation Ontario has had input into the cost factors that should be incorporated
into the cost recovery guidelines.
At Authority Meeting #10/10, held on January 7, 2011, TRCA staff recommended delaying the
100% cost recovery assessment for TRCA until we had more input from the CALC discussion
about fee collection standards and policies, and had an opportunity to fully assess TRCA's cost
recovery implications for 2010, inclusive of the collection of backdated MESP requirements.
With a cost recovery target of 55-60% of the total plan review budget costs in January of this
year, the Authority modified staff recommendations, and instructed staff to re-assess the Fee
Schedule for 100% cost recovery and bring back a proposal for full cost recovery by 2012. The
resulting Resolution #A231/09 was approved, in part, as follows:
83
THEREFORE LET lT BE RESOLVED THAT the 2010-2011 Fee Schedule for Planning,
Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services dated December 18, 2009
and incorporating a 2% cost of living increase for each of 2010 and 2011, be approved,
to be effective January 8, 2010;......
AND FURTHER THAT in future amendments to the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting
and Environmental Review Services, TRCA moves towards full cost recovery as soon as
possible, and no later than January 1, 2012.
The last major fee adjustment took place in 2008, but funds for MESPs were not paid by
landowners in most cases until 2010 and 2011. As of July 2011 all outstanding MESP fees from
2008 have been collected. Minor inflationary adjustments of 2% in 2010 and 2011 were
implemented most recently. TRCA must move forward in terms of fee coverage for the
anticipated workload in 2012-2013, and to address current pressures on operating budgets
corporately. TRCA has followed the Province's guidelines and TRCA's Planning, Permitting and
Environmental Assessment Fees Policy/Guideline 2009 in preparing this report.
TRCA is the first conservation authority to move towards 100% cost recovery in the Province,
however, several other urbanizing authorities have prepared their assessment and will be
reviewing this issue with their boards.
Trends in Workload and Service Delivery Demand
Attachment 1 provides a summary of the volume of files that have been reviewed by TRCA for
three consecutive years (2008 -2010), inclusive of a projected estimated file volume for 2011
based on the trends that have been established to July 2011. Volume of files helps to establish
a baseline of workload, however, does not reflect the increasing complexity of major files. The
majority of files are not simple in nature- many require planning technical or regulatory advice
as per our Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and most files require both. Minor and
standard files traditionally have included involvement of a planner, water resources engineer
and ecologist. However, currently the majority of files are located in complex intensification and
greenfield situations requiring technical review and negotiations for an expanded team inclusive
of planning, water resources, ecology (terrestrial, aquatic), geotechnical, hydrogeology,
geofluvial and, with permits, the added responsibilities of compliance monitoring
(enforcement). Often differences exist between municipalities as to the level of technical review
that they require particularly in the engineering fields.
The changing nature of development in the GTA adds many new challenges to the planning
process for both TRCA and our municipal partners. A new focus on intensification and
redevelopment, the cost of land and complex development sites is increasingly a significant
factor in managing planning and technical review. Additional pressure for higher densities on
developable lands, and on the use of valleys, buffers, wetlands and on the urban/natural
interface for development and infrastructure demand extensive negotiation time and senior
attention. Achieving the appropriate balance between development, and protection and
restoration of natural systems has become a difficult technical and legal challenge. The time
factor has also become of greater essence given the significant amounts of investment and
carrying costs, placing greater emphasis and strain on staff review timelines.
84
Planning and Permitting Volume
The volume of Planning and Permitting applications has remained steady from 2008 to 2010,
and into the second quarter of 2011 at TRCA. TRCA had a record year in terms of permits
approved for construction with well over 1,000 permits issued in 2010.
TRCA met our fees revenue target for 2009 and met the increased target for 2010 with the
infusion of outstanding MESP fees. A total of almost$700,000 has been negotiated over the last
year to contribute to work already in progress in 2011 and into the next few years. Secondary
planning processes and associated MESP processes can span over several years and we must
be able to fund them over time. MESPs cover a significant amount of technical work supporting
the environmental feasibility of the community and secondary plan process and technical
servicing of these planning efforts. As these large scale projects progress, careful monitoring of
these funds is needed to ensure that sufficient monies are in place to cover workload and
special technical needs over the next 2-3 years. These are committed funds built into the
budget process for ongoing project management of large scale assignments, and are not a
reserve.
Workload for the review of Secondary/Block plans and associated MESPs formed an increasing
component of work in 2010 and continues to create a significant component of the
development review function. Several key MESP fee negotiations took place in 2010 and early
2011. TRCA has 17 active MESP processes ongoing this year. A huge workload driver is the
MESP review process around the new Town of Seaton, which incorporates the equivalent of 15
neighbourhood/block plan exercises. Other drivers include Mayfield in Caledon,
Countryside/Springdale North in Brampton, Duff in Heights/Area A9 in Pickering and Ajax, and
several new communities in Vaughan and King. In addition to TRCA's regular file management,
these efforts demand expedited efforts that put strain on senior staff resources.
With the continuing health of the urban real estate market, TRCA's advisory services for
solicitor/realty inquiries and concept reviews have increased in volume. These services help
many landowners get oriented about the environmental features, hazard constraints and
legislative requirements for their properties or lands that they wish to purchase.
Planning and Development will be relying heavily on our comprehensive fee schedule for
funding of the general staff complement, as well as this year's MESP fee negotiations to set
funds in place for 2012 and 2013.
OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) and MLC (Mining and Lands Commission) hearings have been
on a significant increase over the last couple of years, although in most cases we have been
able to settle out of these proceedings after negotiations/mediation with landowners. These
efforts, however, do put pressure on TRCA's legal budget and senior staff resources as do the
increasing pressure for enforcement court hearings. It should be noted that OMB and MLC
hearings have exceeded our projections from the beginning of the year. Fees for hearings
have been considered part of levy expense.
85
Environmental Assessment Volume
Trends in the Environmental Assessment (EA) workload remained high for 2009/2010,
particularly with the impact of the new infrastructure stimulus funding. Although this funding is
over, emergency works projects for infrastructure repair have increased this year for many
municipalities requiring expedited review and approvals. 2011 has had a slower start to EA
projects as municipal partners re-prioritized projects in January/February of this year. Spring
and summer work levels are beginning to reach the volume of the previous year.
The Environmental Assessment team has relied heavily on levy to support the small core team
function. However, TRCA has moved to establish specialized service agreements to fund review
efforts for major infrastructure projects such as TTC (subway/transit systems), Coxwell
Emergency Works Project, key regional infrastructure assignments such as Viva/Rapidco,
Brampton infrastructure review, and recently the Seaton Environmental Assessment in Durham.
These specialized agreements set up a dedicated review team to manage volume hotspots and
improve service delivery for high priority growth related areas of the jurisdiction or large scale
projects.
Level of Service
Under the CALC process, all CAs in Ontario have been required to undertake a service delivery
tracking process for permitting activities for 2011 to determine the extent to which CAs are
about to meet recommended service delivery timelines as stipulated in the procedural manual.
TRCA has maintained a positive 80 to 90% adherence rate to provincial time guidelines.
Planning applications timelines are very much tied to the municipal process, however TRCA's
30-45 day turnaround is achievable with the exception of very complex files or where special
technical assessments are required e.g. modelling.
Environmental Assessment applications have also met the majority of timeline requirements for
standard EAs and permits. The EA team tracks and reports on a tight service delivery standard
for its service delivery partners, and meets these standards 80-90% of the time. For the
non-service delivery partners, the standards are met approximately 70% of the time.
Major staffing restructuring of positions and expertise was made in 2010 in the development
review teams and EA team to provide more senior input and supervision of major/complex files.
Improvements to the quality of file management and file timeline management are positively
visible for 2011 timelines.
86
Operating Lean
One of the critical cost saving measures for TRCA review operations is that our planning and
technical staff reviewers are organized in teams to "integrate" expertise and provide tailored
capabilities to all 15 municipal agencies within TRCA's jurisdiction. For instance, our
environmental planners and technical experts review and process planning applications and
construction permits, as well as assist enforcement on compliance issues. Continuity of the
knowledge of the files from planning policy decisions to ultimate construction and on-site
implementation is of great environmental and financial value to all agencies. Although cost
effective, this approach is challenging to manage from a time management perspective and
can periodically cause backlogs in staff time as they try to cover many differing facets of the
business obligations. A conservative and flexible approach to building staff capability in a team
structure to cover growth demands is in place in TRCA's management of the planning and
ecology divisions. Our team coverage of busy municipalities is very lean in all areas -for
example, a snapshot of the current development planning review teams (only project
management of files) is as follows:
• Toronto Team 3.25 FTE
• Durham Team (Pickering, Ajax, Durham) 1.75 FTE
258 planning files plus carry over files
310 permits
• York West Team (Vaughan, King, Whitchurch Stouffville) 4.0 FTE
219 planning files plus carry over files
99 permits
• Peel and York East 3.5 FTE
• Richmond Hill, Markham 2.5 FTE
295 planning applications plus carry over files
223 permits
These teams also cover OMB and MLC coordination and testimony, as well as assisting with
negotiations for permit compliance and violation resolution.
Enforcement coverage for compliance review will be discussed in a separate report to the
Executive Committee, anticipated before the end of 2011. Projected needs include two
additional officers to cover existing and increasing demands with construction growth.
Value Added Services
For many landowners and community members, obtaining approvals from conservation
authorities is a perceived red tape barrier that many do not understand. The legislative
requirements are layered and sometimes complex. Many of these requirements tie directly to
provincial policy and municipal Official Plan requirements that are mandated to safeguard
public investment and ensure that provincial interests are addressed at the site level. Significant
public savings are afforded due to the conservation authority approach to water management
and flood and erosion risk. Residential clients often do not understand how technical advice
from specialists at TRCA help to add value to their properties or safeguard their investment,
particularly around erosion and flooding potential.
87
Negotiations with development landowners not only requires extensive technical input and
creative solutions to meet a variety of legislative requirements but sets an essential open space
system in place as a long term legacy for new and redeveloped communities. The protection
of natural systems, as well as the remediation and restoration efforts that go into these large
proposals through the development process, will result in a healthier open space amenity for
growing communities of tomorrow. Appropriate attention paid to ecologically-based site design
today will assist to create essential green infrastructure and amenities for the future, alleviating
expensive remediation costs for taxpayers in the years to come. Risk such as the blow out of
roads and culvert bridges, storm sewer and piping destruction, and private development
flooded in sudden storms are just a few of the unexpected risks that demand costly
remediation. TRCA's watershed studies have gone a long way over the last few years to
identify the need for wholesale change in the way we conduct watershed-based natural system
management and these issues need to translate into site level approvals and negotiations.
Approval requirements are never intended to be a "barrier" to development or good site design
proposals.
The pool of TRCA senior technical expertise in all areas of environmental planning, engineering
and ecology saves municipalities the cost of individualized consulting and peer review funds
associated with addressing complex legislative requirements, and dealing with the large
volume of planning, building and infrastructure applications coming forward. Both
municipalities and TRCA, despite solid supportive working relationships, are struggling to keep
up with the increasing demands for fast track development approvals while maintaining the
quality of the approval outcome.
Cost Recovery Analysis
Methodology for Estimating 100% Cost Recovery
The methodology used to establish a full cost recovery proposal has been founded on five key
analyses:
• Determination of all associated direct costs to the plan and permit review functions for
TRCA. This includes inter-divisional calculations of budget components that contribute to
the "development plan review function", using 2011 budget figures.
• Determination of the projected revenue targets to move towards a full cost recovery for
2012.
• Preparation of detailed analysis of types of planning, permitting and EA applications and
averaged time/cost incurred to meet full cost recovery.
• Incorporation of input from stakeholders related to file and fee negotiations during 2010 and
2011.
• Incorporation of streamlining efforts to manage file cost and ensure efficient timelines to
meet service delivery targets.
The results of this work has been integrated to prepare a new fee proposal that would move
towards full cost recovery. Obviously, many factors can change the types and volume of
applications in any given year. With best efforts to analyze our needs today, a conservative fee
schedule is proposed.
88
Overview of the Cost of the Plan and Permit Review Function
The plan review function at TRCA does not just rest with one division eg. Planning and
Development but crosses over several divisions and business areas to include a
comprehensive assessment for full cost recovery. Table 2 (Attachment 3) summarizes the
various cost inputs to the review function, inclusive of overhead and current deficiencies in
TRCA's existing operations that are affecting service delivery. In projecting cost recovery for
2012 -2013, staff has based our assumptions on the volume of work estimated above for 2010
(the most recent complete year of service) and projected volume of workload for 2011.
The existing expenditure for 2011, directly associated with the plan review function
is $4,386,700. This budget amount has been adjusted to include key staffing and expense
deficiencies that currently exist in providing the required level of service to move into 2012-13 at
full cost recovery. Based on existing budget numbers, the total cost for plan review and plan
input responsibilities in 2012 dollars total:
Direct Plan and Permit Review Cost $5,157,200
Levy Support for Plan Input (Policy & EA) $2,650,670
TOTAL Planning, EA and Permitting Function $7,807,870
The total cost of plan and permit review includes current staff costs for planning and permit
applications for private landowner development (see Table 2). Also included are engineering
and ecology technical staffing, permit compliance, IT and GIS support to file management, and
property staff input to plan review. A 15% overhead estimate has been added to cover
supporting expenses for accounting, provision of vehicle fleet for meeting and field work,
insurance, accommodation costs, miscellaneous expenses, etc.
In addition, the planning and development review function has operated with staff and expense
deficiencies in the following areas for several years. Allowances have been added to the total
cost estimate for improvements needed to be made in the following areas for 2012-13 to
address service demand in new growth areas:
Technical Improvements: Geotechnical engineering, water resources engineering, enforcement
officers, geofluvial/shoreline engineering peer advisory services.
Management Improvements: IT/GIS system improvements, digital project
management/tracking system, digital circulation and associated printing, customer assistance,
consulting, office administration assistance.
An allowance of$670,000 has been added for the plan review cost summary.
Total levy based costs for plan input (Table 2), inclusive of policy and technical studies that
directly support development review are estimated at$2,650,670. Of this amount, $1,592,170
covers the Environmental Assessment core function, inclusive of a$200,000 deficiency
allowance.
In addition, levy has also covered the difference between fee revenue and full expenditures for
plan review totalling $1,336,700 in 2011 dollars.
89
Projected Revenue Targets
In 2011, TRCA's projected fee revenue target is approximately $3,500,000. This revenue target
is divided into two parts - $3,050,000 for development plan review and permitting, and $450,000
for environmental assessment planning and permitting.
As per TRCA policy, a 55-60% cost recovery for all plan review functions is targeted for fee
revenue. This target is similar in other urban conservation authorities. In 2010, TRCA met its
revenue target but only with the additional fees charged to cover TRCA's work on MESPs.
In 2012, the projected revenue target will need to be$5,157,000.
In 2012, TRCA fee revenue must increase to achieve$2,107,000 at 100% recovery. This is
calculated as the difference between TRCA's projected target of$5,187,000, and the current
revenue actuals of$3,050,000.
Environmental Assessment review/permitting fees cover a much lower percentage of recovery.
With only a 30%fee recovery, the EA core team relies on a series of individualized service
agreements to more effectively cover intensive EA work program review and approvals. Non -
service agreement municipalities and private corporations should be paying closer to full cost
recovery, particularly for capital-based construction permitting. A projected revenue target of
$1,600,000 is established for 2012.
Time/Cost Analysis of Applications
TRCA staff has generated a detailed analysis of the various types of applications and their
averaged cost ranges. The time based cost analysis reflects a breadth of complexity in
application categories and an estimate of technical input for approvals to achieve cost
recovery. The summary of this analysis is provided in Attachment 2.
These cost estimates include standard engineering, ecology and geotechnical review time
estimates. Specialized hydrogeology and geofluvial requirements would need to be added to
these base calculations, on an as needed basis in complex assignments.
A similar exercise has been completed for the environmental assessment fee review analysis.
This time-based analysis for cost recovery by application type helped in establishing a revised
fee cost for TRCA application review, based on real time input to reach cost recovery targets.
Stakeholder Input
Ongoing discussions about fees for service has taken place over the last couple of years with
BILD, individual development landowners and municipalities. Several key issues have come to
the forefront:
• Permitting projects, where more than the standard 2-3 submissions for approvals are
required due to the inability of the consultants or owners to resolve standard design issues
should be charged additional fees, with notification to the project owner. Repeat
submissions with little quality control or fragmented submissions of technical reports with
no integration of study results is a major workload (and costing) challenge for TRCA staff.
The principle of charging fees for repeat submissions beyond basic reviews was suggested
by BILD.
90
• Landowners and municipalities want TRCA to move towards delegated staff approvals of
standard /minor permit applications. (A new report will be forthcoming on these regulatory
revisions later this fall).
• Rural municipalities have expressed concerns over the cost and service delivery of minor
infrastructure upgrades (e.g. culverts, maintenance and upgrading of bridges, roads) and
minor residential permits.
• All stakeholders are concerned about the change in MNR's ESA (Endangered Species Act)
approval requirements on project cost and time delays. This is a direct provincial approval
process that TRCA does not manage.
Streamlining Efforts
The following streamlining efforts have been made this year or will be continued into
2012-2013:
Regular development file review
TRCA has established regular working sessions/meetings with most of our municipal partners
to coordinate the comprehensive review and commenting on Planning Act and CA permitting
applications. With regular working sessions every 2 to 4 weeks (or as workload warrants), a
streamlined commenting effort and discussions of technical issues moves files ahead faster
and with mutual agreement.
Senior Project Management
A focused effort has been undertaken in 2010 to incorporate Senior Manager and Director
involvement in MESP and major file review processes, as well as attendance at Pre-consultation
meetings to ensure complete applications. Senior efforts assist in project management,
planning and technical negotiations, resolving complex issues, as well as trouble-shouting. Fee
costs can also be part of these initial discussions, as needed.
Minor Works/Permit Delegation
The Ministry of Natural Resources has amended Ontario Regulation 97/04 (content regulation)
to allow the Executive Committee to delegate positive permit decisions to conservation
authority staff. MNR is currently undertaking the legislative process for all CAs to update their
individual regulations accordingly, which will simplify and streamline the permitting process in
the near future.
Training
TRCA senior staff organized a training presentation with BILD members earlier in the year,
covering topics of complete submissions, avoiding technical pit-falls, and providing more
comprehensive ecology and engineering submissions for planning and permitting applications.
Senior staff has also prepared a presentation on the policies and regulations around bridge and
culvert design for councillors and municipal staff. This work has been presented to Caledon
Council and will form part of on-going training in other municipalities in the fall. Topics for
continuing learning educational sessions will continue to be formulated with BILD and our
municipal partners.
91
Additional training sessions and workshops will be hosted to address specific issues for the
development industry and with staff within our municipal partner's offices. We will continue to
communicate our roles and responsibilities, service standards, and policy/guidelines as
needed.
Streamlining Infrastructure
Communications will be improved with rural engineering departments to assist in streamlining
new infrastructure approvals and work towards fair cost recovery. Improvements of technical
guidelines for stream crossings will be considered.
Service Level Agreements
The Environmental Assessment team will continue to monitor changes in infrastructure review
and negotiate service level agreements where dedicated staff review would benefit the service
delivery and cost efficiency of infrastructure EA approvals. New opportunities for specialized
service level agreements will be pursued with municipalities or private organizations that are
experiencing increases in infrastructure growth.
Fisheries Review
Fisheries review and in-stream construction works are completed under a Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO) Level III Agreement. Approximately 90% of all projects requiring this
review are approved by TRCA and Letters of Advice are issued to meet DFO requirements. This
one-windowed approval approach provides effective service and cost savings to all
proponents.
IT/Project Management Interface
Planning and Development's IT systems and database are in need of a major overhaul and
updating to upgrade our ability to accept digital applications, manage file review efficiently
between divisions, and improve our time tracking and archival systems. Improvement to
web-based communications with our client group is also in need of improvement. These efforts
will form part of an ongoing process to improve digital file management over the next few years.
Our GIS group is just exploring a self-screening web based mapping system to assist the
customer service needs for TRCA's huge jurisdiction.
Revised Fee Schedule
The proposed fee schedule includes a number of new categories of fees that will help to
streamline file approvals including phased approvals, expedited reviews where necessary, red
line revision, etc.
The Proposal - Towards Full Cost Recovery
The following fee adjustments have been proposed based on three key strategies:
1. Broaden the spectrum of fee categories within each application type to cover the scale of
work more accurately, based on time analysis and to ensure that more costly complex
applications recover extra costs. Maintain reasonable fees for less complex files, primarily
residential applications, minor applications and modest scale efforts. Time analysis
indicated that many applications were seriously undercharged particularly for major
development applications, major EAs, Special Policy Area applications and permitting. A
more comprehensive coverage of full technical input and standard compliance review has
been adjusted in the new schedule.
92
2. Add new fee categories for reviews that are not cost recovered now -such as planning
screening, repeat submissions, plans of subdivisions for industrial and commercial, major
filling and grading, topsoil stripping and temporary stormwater management, and
commercial filling pit applications.
3. Adjust or add new fees for services that will assist with streamlining approval and
processing efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges,
red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee.
Delegated authority to staff for the approval of certain straight-forward permits will assist
greatly in moving applicants directly to construction, avoiding the constraint of Executive
Committee schedules. This legislative authority will be coming forward from the Province to
Conservation Authorities.
It should be noted that the MESP fee guidelines have been refined for clarification purposes. No
other increases are recommended for MESPs. Clarification around these fees has been made
related to inclusion of industrial/commercial sites, non-participating landowner requirements,
and potential re-assessment fees for unapproved draft plans of subdivision as part of the MESP
area.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 outline the fee recommendations for Planning Services, Permitting Services
under Ontario Regulation 166/06, and Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Review
Services, and include the amendments to achieve full cost recovery. The amendments reflect a
fair assessment of cost recovery based on an estimate of staff time required to facilitate each
application category as we can currently determine, with a view to build revenue in 2012 to a
target of$ 5,157,000. The Environmental Assessment revenue target will aim to reduce
dependence on operating levy and move towards a target of approximately $1,600,000 for
2012. However, our fee increase for EAs and associated permitting will impact some of our
municipal partners who currently do not have service agreements.
TRCA's financial administration reserves the right to add an inflationary increase to the fee
schedules in years after 2012, if required.
Fees In Perspective
Municipalities have for some time had a comprehensive system of charging for development
review and growth related applications inclusive of development charges, application fees,
building permits and engineering fee charges. Conservation authorities have one application
fee process that applies to planning applications and permitting - covering development
environmental feasibility studies and plan review tied to our commenting role, and site
planning/construction permitting tied to our regulatory mandate. Fee recovery is an important
aspect of our ability to provide the calibre of technical input needed to support complex
applications involving many ecological and engineering requirements not provided by our
municipalities. Our fees are still reasonable compared to the scale of application and input
required.
For example, a standard subdivision within TRCA's jurisdiction includes about 300 to 500
units/lots on sites that range from 10 to 25 hectares. If we outline the composite fees for a
standard, streamlined subdivision review process the total TRCA fee would cumulatively total
$89,500. These fees would include the Secondary Plan/MESP review, Draft Plan of Subdivision
review (with an OPA/ZBA blended fee), and approximately four regulation permits. The
standard fee breakdown would look like this:
93
MESP Base fee $7,285
Comprehensive review $11,250 ($450 X 25ha)
Draft Plan of Subdivision review $26,000
- Clearance $11,460
- (OPA/ZBA included as blended fee) -----
Regulation Permits
- one minor permit (topsoil stripping) $4,000
- two stormwater management ponds $16,000
- one major feature-based permit $13,500
TOTAL project review fees $89,495
Based on a subdivision scenario such as highlighted above, the cost per unit for this
environmental and natural hazard review would amount to$178.00 per unit/lot. In addition, an
open space amenity is established for the future health and enjoyment of the new community -
a key marketable component of any residential plan.
Obviously, there are many variables to each application and community plan, but this baseline
scenario is a common standard in TRCA's jurisdiction.
On the infrastructure picture for TRCA's jurisdiction, massive transportation, transit and
servicing infrastructure projects thread through the urban and rural landscape with significant
implications for environmental, natural hazard and engineering challenges. The value added
for TRCA to advise on risk-based assessment and ecological remediation for 100's of
thousands of dollars of infrastructure across the GTA is a huge benefit for agencies, the
broader population and local community. Infrastructure can be 50 to 100 years old in parts of
our watersheds and these projects require a serious assessment of investing in the long term
life cycle costing for future infrastructure needs. A snapshot of order of magnitude costs for
standard infrastructure costs includes:, for example:
• new span bridge - $8 Million for a 30-45 metre bridge;
• replacement of old culvert/bridges with new bridge - $11- $12 million for spans ranging for
20-30 metres;
• culvert extension associated with road widening -$200,000 -$400,000 for culvert extension;
road widening cost in the millions of dollars
• Average Road rehabilitation, including average 2 CSP culvert replacements costs -
approximately $1 million.
TRCA review fees are modest in relation to the financial cost and scale of these assignments
across the GTA. Our permit fee, for instance, would be $13,500 for a major replacement bridge
of 20-30 metres (A potential EA planning fee of$11,500 may be applicable if there is no EA
service agreement). Our environmental assessment fee schedule range addresses the
complexity of the assignment but it is clear that for the environmental value added to the EA
process, that TRCA input is critical to the achievement of essential natural hazard and
ecological remediation for the future. These natural system legacies save municipalities long
term remedial costs and establish an amenity system of community value into the future.
94
No fee schedule is an absolute to achieve full cost recovery -types of applications and volume
change from year to year. TRCA has experienced a relatively high volume of work but with few
downward fluctuations for 3-4 years. Ongoing monitoring of the fee schedule, demands of the
workload and cost recovery targets will be conducted as we move into 2012-2013. Building a
modest fee reserve for revenue fluctuations would be desirable from a corporate financial
management perspective as the economy changes and file volume and associated revenues
adjust. This would facilitate maintaining the most experienced staff in a downturn of work, and
would maintain efficiency and experience that has been built over the last 10 years in TRCA.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to represent TRCA on the CALC Committee on issues of conservation
authority procedures, fee schedule standards and service delivery.
TRCA sent the draft report to BILD early in September and currently are conducting working
sessions to go through fee schedule rationale and analysis.
Staff is available to conduct working sessions with BILD to provide clarification of our analysis
and fee proposals as soon as possible. Formal comments from BILD need to be brought back
to the Authority.
Staff will report to the Authority on consultation efforts on this report in order to finalize fee
recommendations and incorporate the results into the operating budget finalization for 2012.
Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Emails: cwoodland @trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214
Emails: cwoodland @trca.on.ca
Date: October 5, 2011
Attachments: 6
95
Attachment 1
Budget Performance/Notes and Trends 2011
Updated July 2011
Mandated Activity:
Conservation Authorities Act, Planning Act, Environmental Assessment Act
Measure 2008 2009 2010 2011 PI
Actual Actual Actual
New Planning Applications 708 538 772 772
Carry Forward Appl. (40%) 215 308 300
New Permits Applications 1000 1019 1062 1020
Carry Forward Appl. (20%) 203 212 204
Permits Issued 923 849 1026 1025
Minor Works Issued 278 280
Environmental Assessments 177 125 115 125
EMPS 11 - 1 3
Routine Infrastructure Issued 110 120
Solicitor Inquiries 631 520 835 835
Concept Development Inquiries 159 150
Violations Issued 67 91 112 100
Active OMB/MLC hearings 8 11 12 15
Active Env. Tribunal hearing 5 8 14 17
(+ Seaton 15 plans)
Special Planning Committees 30 30 25 25
Official Plan Exercises 4 4 6 5
Special Policies Areas (SPAs) 14 14
96
Attachment 2
Time/Cost Analysis of Applications
Planning Applications Average Prof. Hrs. Range of cost
Minor Variances
Minor Issues 10 hours $500 to $700
Major Issues 20 hours $1500 to $2000
Consent
Minor Issues 16 hours $1200 to $1500
Major Issues 45 hours $4000 to $4500
Residential Site Plan
Minor 6 hours $700 to $1000
Major 26 hours $2950 to $3630
Site Plan Control
Minor 18 hours $1000 to $1390
Standard 52 hours $5175 to $6745
Major 92 hours $9935 to $12,710
Complex 152 hours $15,160 to $20,000
OPA/ZBA
Standard 42 hours $3150 to $4410
Major 70 hours $5570 to $7800
Complex 150 hours $11,920 to $16,700
Subdivision
Standard 150 hours $13,250 to $18,050
Major 200 hours $19,160 to $25,600
Complex 330 hours $30,000 to $41,000
Permit Applications Average Prof. Hrs. Range of cost
Residential
Standard 15 -20 hours $750 to $2268
Major 52 hours $3815 to $5340
Development Project
Standard 55 hours $5585 to $8060
Major/Complex 80 - 150 hours $11,180 to $15,650
Minor Works
Minor 3 hours $300 to $450
97
Attachment 3
N
O O O O o
O O O O O
f4 O O O O O
N O O O_ �
N M
W
Y N E
O N
> 0
D O
o
O
a
^� J N
N N
t Co Q
U U
i
�.
0 Z o y
O L Ul N C M N Z a3 Q y
N U
_ C
O 0 o w s c u
O (6
Z E m ° o
Cu g -0 ° —
l=i o E ° m f6 v
0
in W Co H .� F m
W
W0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 r- r-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r.- o
O O in o 0 0 o m in o 0 0 0 0 o m o � o 0
Z J r O O O O n O O r- N O r- O 0 r- O O O
T- V V M O O O M O O M O !7 O N
M 00
O In N N N O N N (C N N I-
nj V)V)69
} L
Ur 0 U c
LL O m u .N N a
O �' o a ti
O 4) CL d N (n Q °' ° N Q
W .v m o o W Q � 0 � N �
to c w v Q ° N o
N m v m
E '
U
= C d 3°
a o
.a-
i v Z N n F o i m °o a a U y O � Q>E co m o o M o
° O ._ ` m a a c)
U o aE U W O E
Q Q a U)0- 5 O
Lu () L Q Q f 01 - o o m
N O . (6 (n N
o J
W O -0 �o v
Q a � m°
° m
p w a W W a s Co cn fr � U)
EL
Z
Q ° m ° m
a a '
(� O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O o •E
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O > o m
Z In O O O
J a V M ' lO) N
z 0 N 0 I- O w O O O h
0n V O L 7
Z 00 M N LO LO
Q M O y�
Z=O O O l) lf) O N O O N
'
ti
a
U E ° E
Q 3 v o U D
a3i o ° 3 ti CO
> U
> N D '� .> Q
d' f p Co N
E N N yj > >
N U Q D U J J
IL w N Co O W a cOi 0 Q d
6
M w 01 N
U E N M C O 0 N N
N CO Lu
O -2 W
U N > ' d
E O N O
Q O _ Q O°x � U U 0 Q 0 a N
fr W a W a a a W Q F 0
O
98
Attachment 4
CIN
o 44i
LL
ii ul °
04
N = O ul
N
C U II
Lica
a
cc U
N Z a aaa aL aM a � 0) 0 ar-
_ Q W Z ZZZ Zr- Z (0 z rr Z00
Z
.= Q � o » ka k
.� W
� J
Q U �
Q
U
OC
ul ul � w � w
alai � 04 Cn� � � � ' �' �
&S
I
IIII III
� 'Ill'°1111111 �
W w
�� � �� � �
0 � 0 0
O 000 O 0LO 0 L 00 00 00
00 LO 0 (D (D N N O r 0) (D LO LO O N
W K3 N N CO CO In O O r O CO O CO
Z K3
O CO
LO
t
Q N N
U > N N c
J = CO Cu
a U)
a E
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cu 0 0
E E E E E E E N
LU w. d 0
C
w C
0� � \ C7
u a a a
° O E
O W Z (n Z U)
a �
a) a) c a) 0 a) C
Q � 0 aCL a :NO w °' � 0 00
Q) 0 a) .> a) c a) - a) '— a)
99
rn
O O O O O N
O O a)
III O O
III III� z 04 � 1 0�
111 II6 W I ",
111 II6 W
W
U
0) rn rn Z o o o o
Q W z r LID 0) 0) LID 0) 0) Q Q Q Q
z z z z
w
J
U
IIIIIIW o � � o 0 0 0 0
l cl W
O
O 0�
III
L) M aW O W w O
O O O O O Z
OO III O
O O
" o �
00 LID o LID
o �
o o N, LID (n O 60 -6 -
M N N W 00 � 00 �
W
LU N O U) U) U) •-
-7 � O r 00
a) (�
00 f- � ��mW
CO O r 00 LV �� ' m,llu� Qf O N
t r N N 0 '4 t t (1)
Q N <» <» ka a) ro a N LID N LI a' C CL
U � 1� Crj
N C N C cu Cl) co N C N
J y N t y a) O O '' „O N O t O
t „
QO O a) i O O � O O
CC ca t C CO CO t U u� 'u t CO t CO O m CIL
•— •— t Ln i t Ln i LID
-Q L ���",;1i�� '���� In '^ ' i Ln i U
E E E Lo E N O) � N N Z O OQ � � N 'W N Q O
0 � O
s a)
W O_ N U
CL cu X Q C cu
� .. a) U) � o . , �
Z
CL ° � ° emu''
� N 'out ° c
oC c M
cu E a� o
U N O O O ui i I� �
m O a) O Lu Lu
Q m
k �„
d m 0 C O uTM O w w O
'a O i CL
CO CL c N O =3 a N O cc$ W ' Q) W O ca
O MI m O
NOC � � � � � D � �
100
rn
co
Mill IIW
III III W u c�
111 II6 W Imo, �
I� I
IIII III
I �
LU
U
z
Q W
W
Q LL
W
J
U
ul ul�
ul ul�
ul ul
I� ' I
ul�
u Iljllllllllllllll
illy
LJ
LU
LU
LL ° „w
Z
0
Q �
a �
Q u
ZP
I�
LU
z
Q '0"�
U �
I�
J a L
101
i N ^ (3)
LL V O O
•i <t N
N N
V e
U) '— w
C O
III � � � ,
w
CO °u°
LL d O O
cc 0
O
O
_ O
Q
U
OC
H
C ((D 1((D N_ � O_ r
C\i v' T T T (6
� U fA fA N fA fA fA
LL Z
N
cu
cu
cu
O O
Q Q U
� N
p O
LL
O
3
(ri N N TM U
N y U
co U cu 2 � 1�
Cr M
Lo U III
ol
Q N .> u N N
.� U N 4f
L E p 3 Q
(� U N �IW
N N (u v) N ^ (n i6 N
LU0 (� c o O cc$
LL m
CU
++ LL
c 3
cu V c c > - N cu O � � Cl)CO J 0 .0 N N N •> c N N
co
d u U O
+ +
—Cls U �
Q ai ai N
W o ,c� o Q„ Q a O
� Q U- ro Q Q oC Q > cu N
a� 3 a
O
102
LO
> M a)
(a
a X Cy a�
ca N a) cr
Q U O O
U (a a a U C �W�B '�irz
O — c O O
I C
(1) U U .0 U
U) a i rz Q..
� o N c- ca U O
N a) >' CO a �
CO '_' — a)
NN a) 0 0 0
o N 0 i
U
a) E > ca ca �" „'D
N a) E N ca a a) O O " U
_ Q >, U O
O m U ca a) .� O dN
N N 7 E -0 'uV
v roa O
o o..�ir
c a)
o
ca
o
ca 0
o cCa ..
ca ca ca
~ ° O O U c ca O
N
H
0> _0 a.
N 0 O ca U C O
CO O
O O
. CO :F o ca
CO .
O r'u
U .'
p a s 7 C U U C ca '�d,',N �W;,N
E Ch O N c C _ c� — a) rz
U C -a - 'C (a fnY;,N
�_ Co Q � N C N m
O a) � a) ° O U ` O ru o
a) O N U a) c iA U g�u
C a) a) C is C a) W
O 00 a) C c� cagu
U C N
Q�
C6 0
O O ca
ca a) a o _0 U (1)
o Kz
> v o CO
_ N O .� a) O ..
a C = a� >, „
ca .o ) a) (D a c ° a g8
a) C'
is -0 .— N .E N U) - ca a) c O >
C o a)
.0 Co a chi c°h E aa) a� U o ° ° � > o W
- — `� -
a .� ca .� — a) — C O 'er O— ca a— o C m ca N ca C O tm
ro H _
�..
ca U_ (A _
a) a III„
0
Z r N C`6 li Lo CO I-- p p O M
103
y N rn
O N o
LL V W o y c a) 'c o
LU II � > CO
� — O cu
Cl) 0 o �
_ cup
= Z Q Q N ,
N a 0 c a >
LL cu cu p u'
IL
N a w Y
CO UO U)
LLB a) U ��m m Q
CC z N — cu
0 ~ cu v °off cu J =3 0 -
d >. �u .F '� U o
Q 2 a a) a) a) C
_ a
Q 3 'c a) cu wu
V cu E O C z
O � O
„-
0 t a)
a) O cu 'C
> a) I U) a) p cu °tz
3 + a) p > Z O
N 'E „ Q a) a) a) O> CU
Q U cu 4 4 4 °' 0 a) CO cu i
a i) 0 co Q Q Q t U
'U Q U N o 0 o C a)
a U o Q cu O O O a)
Q m Ln N M u) a�
— ,O
a) a) cu ~ a) U) a) O „
a) a)
LL LL cu O „„ a)
N
fn a) a) a) cu ''^' E a) +� a)
�O cu � O Q cu a) UO
+�
00 00 -0 Q E cu " `�o i+,
O 0 0 a) O a) c cu
r (V 0 '0 U)
1 cu CL U) Q >
O K3 K3 .N Q �
N
i a) +
0 CL a) N —
C N Q U U 0 CU a)
O cu a) i �u� C $ a) W N Q Q 0 i
(u `e U aW (u C
*' U) r- a) N O U) Q a) cu U) - U
C Uj cu O i O I •O a) E •O cu Q N a)
a >. O � o o a) U W uyi Q
U) O N Cu +� Q•O E cc$ C U)
„� wi N }' C
Q t � a) o cn —W E O U a)
LO_ cn u � � �o[ � a)
Cn O a) Y c� O c O c c H +
U � — ._ O
co c � cu W C � o[ c H U O cn Lb � N � N > c a)
L N O > =3 Q O UL U U N O � 0 Q o a) C
W cu N 0 cu — � „M a C W Cn , a) ?, +, cu
M! a) 0 cu cu U) LL y a) (� ,U
C +� t a) — a) a) a) 0 O N �_ y cu co � U
.� u0i N C j U Q C O co W LL .N a) cu
= Q cn 2 0 0 E O cu
N cn cn r--•O cn a) y O O Q Q
C� N co) p N " a) a) UL X cu N > N
CU dl � a) p IL a) U U � •� .0 cu C > CO
OR �r t Q Q O � O Un UL H �.LL UL UL Q
cu a)
'S y U 0 0 U r W Q Q•N C U
' LL UL UL Q U N 'm N r N M (u CO CL ,U) •N „
a) Q O U W co
N LL H C a) W .
uJ t o
% 0 oU[
Q u „ (11) H Q 0-!L— 0- cn f,%
104
0
7 � %
$ = k \
d \ f 7
\ \ 2 CL
2 2a
E cii
\ 0
k \ §
0) g\
� � f
k / 2
§ cu E
cu «
a-
_
c % �
\ E \
\ 7
\ '
\ 2 \
c »
cu _ .2-
U) cx
0 / /
& U)
E Ĥ
.§ CU a)
E @ R
cu z 0
CL \ f
/ /\
\ 2 9
E � k
'
$
k C §
2 77
E / / §
U) o
\ E \ 2
2 k
J /
/\ � §
/ 7 / \
U) /
I U)
E / § m
� 2 C\
/ \ k
/U)
)
/ \ / D-
1 05
i N LL
Z ON U
C W
W U 0 Lr
Rill loz
LL
N N N uw
U W U U
d 0 u' U
N U �
Q
W U ,
W W U
NW U W 0 U U
wu
~ � U '
ZZ
�U u � �
Lr
im C4
u
cr Inc
0 in U
CZ
„ W w !C:W u WW
u'C U
as
U � � W U c
f z
Q) Inc IY
� u�
0 0
Cr
m Cr
U u
106
rn
0
c
ro
c
cu
o y
N cu
cu
� Y �
) N
cu
Q U
c 4
a
E U _
O C
m H O
1 N :•
R
N O
y
CL R c�
O E
U
O O .
C C 7
N
� O
W N Co
E
Q
>
� R Q
w`' N _ Q
c cu
ZZ N O Q
cu„U
a
O N C >
ca •O
4 c V U
, c y i y
C" 0 a O t
o
E R 0
� ,T„Po „Po + cif
� 0 U
; N U) U- Q
cu cL
CL
N 0 i N
t
„W
Cr
O +”
W 0 i
Q •V R CU
Q
Q V_
O CO .Q .a)
Q i
107
Attachment 5
O a
O cC o
Co LL 0
O IIW
Cc_ N
t N O
fnQ
r.+ �
LLN it
� i C-4
> O
cc � r� W
i cc III
N j 0 „
E N
Q
Q �
U � v
~ Cc
i
00
r.+ M
C LV Ef3 ka ONO ° ° °m
_
cc LV OL OO
C N LL F » (Y)
N C
E
O
N C
M
N N
O
N
N
V
N
C
C
E
CL r0
Z z:
O Q
H U
Q J O
a
a ;
C� Q a a� �
LU � a
CL O °Cr' O U)
cc LV Q
F a L3 O N
Z N Z Y o
O _ o a
cadp.� o c
WO O J U N E
� O N
13- C p
O Q N a) N C N
« i .0 ir W Cn D
108
LO
0
111 II6 W N
116116 a)
C
II
116II
"V'1111 V'1111 111%, 41111111'
ccnx
"" 0 .
U U U > U) co C
a) a) a) (1) LO E a)
O O O N nj ` 7
W Q Q Q N U
t K}
O a
LLJ a) a) a) r cu E 3 0
LL CL CL CL LO LO O O M 'o LO
to 3 a) o
N K3 (D &
00 2 -2 N LO f2
N
K3 a
0
,O
cu M a)
W
N a� W
uut„ 'u' IO O c�
O +
co W LL N
cu C4
O
U 0 III
CG Z 7 O
O Q _ o
r ° °
Z 0 10
0 V u CL N p
Q)
Q J1W Q cu CL Z
ca cn C) — C
a 0 cu a) a °
COQ o � ° o U) N ? „
Q C U O
_0
u Q cn cu
� � U)
CC ca a) a) o O
c -0 U
U cu N Y ro
O — 3 E 0 U c Q
O > cn O —
��„ a�� a) c� t C �� cn a)
a�
0 „" „”
N — C > c� N — CIS
O „, 3 U ” a) U � O a)
II O
O O
Q " C '° 0 cL C a)
a 21 `� ate)
109
LO
0
V Lu co
LLJ N
ct�
u u
W U
Z 0 "
O Iw. O
U U
C:
ZP �
1"
O O
U C: U
O U W O
b" &S
O III �" W NO O
0 o
cc
I ,� ^µ
? N
c c
LV W o
LU 3 3 W N LO LL
U U
O O
0 0
LO LO
U
O
O1
�G TMO LO
O IS � Cr O
m Z - � w Z
r O O U ^ F_
ct
Q JW C4 QQ O
Da
H E, Lu
O
O °o o p�
O � � o 4k, OW
OC u u a s a
cc W c c o o ° O
a OO N ' Q OC
�� �o
tz
UU
cu cu O C4' O
U) U) � ct�
Po Irl� O „, � O �"I`I N C
1-11C(L It
„I wu 0 W o 0 0
C4 j5
Lzz
CL Z
110
y LO
n
O �.. aWN o o ai o
C z <t Cri
O C �► LV p k �' �
CL_ O N O
Cri 0 Cri U
CL
G> z OW
Q ZEE O N
�L cc O co N i U �
G> vi
W ° CO o
W � o ro
,� a o o
(rj S4
CJ 6B
OCOO —°-�
cri
rood _
o
= N � O U
co
c C O OW
cx N O U O N cC� C) W
O
0 0 Cl) (� O U
cC� NW U
(� Cl)
y O O O
i O 0 O
c u o
a� o
CO cj
„ o
U
15 ro CO
o
O � o a� •3 � , '"� o
Pc
a� ro
u 4
U Cl) .0 cri
° E •c
O Ev
E roC � roro �
0
°
Cri Fr Cl) Cri
° 1 �
a) � p ° , ' o m 4z
a� o ° �
�y o
CO °
O
Cri
c co
a°i ro c a°i o
O U
06 L6 6 6
111
NI,,
LO
3
LO
c Z w
O „ `o
1 C4 O
lisill
C4 W
ol
'u
a
U ro
U
U �
O O O
40 O U O N
U QJ p
cn
Nm
41111 -0
5 P „'
c 'k N
cr
W C4
Cr O;'
U
U
O M 0 U O
, � O Inc O
0, O O W co
O
Q� ..
„ CO„ �
uC c
a C4 0 ,
O !r „ �
41111 ll�O = ' „ u CO nZ N
V V 'C
r. O Q
N O t p
G! G! O u'
112
Attachment 6
Table 5
C o TC,)1�ONTO AND RE(;'IOPV
�1 on er a �o TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for
Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services
for The Living City October 14, 2011
APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE I IIIII III iIIII' IIII IIIIC ""'1111""'IOIIII
ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS
MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UTILITY BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Environmental Assessment Review
Master Plan $10,400 Minor $11,000 Minor
$26,000 Major $19,500 Standard
(subject to negotiation) $27,566 Major
(subject to negotiation)
Individual EA $26,000 $27,500
(subject to negotiation) (subject to negotiation)
Class EA-Schedule/Category C $10,405 $5,250 Minor
11,500 Standard
17,600 Major
Class EA-Schedule/Category B $5,200 $5,566 Minor
$8,866 Standard
`12,200 Major
Class EA-Schedule/Category A n/a n/a
- EA pre-approved *see below *see below
- Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit may be required
EA Addendum Reports $1,875 $2,666 Minor
$2,866 Standard
$3,866 Major
EA Property Screening or Inquiry $250 $265
GIs Fee Direct charge to non- Direct charge to non-levy
levy partners through partners through GIs
GIs
Detailed Design Review
Project Clearance- No Permit Required $1,875 $2,666 Minor
(note: EA Service Delivery assumes two $4,666 Major
submissions)
Peview of works tow,application of $630 $656 Minor
Section 35 of the Fisheries Act- (No $2,866 Standard
permit required) $4,866 Major
(note: EA Service Delivery assumes two
submissions)
Page 1 of 5
113
APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE I IIIII III iIIII' IIII IIIIC ""'1111""'IOIIII
Project Clearance and Fisheries Act $1,875 $2,000 Minor
Review- Environmental Management Plan $11,000 Major
for Dewatering
(note:EA Service Dettsew°h assscies
three sshcitsstossC
Peheat Submission n/a 25%tow°each additional
sshcitsstos
EA Related Planning Act Application See TRCA Planning See TRCA Planning
Services Fees Services Fees Schedule for
Schedule for appropriate rates
appropriate rates
*Regulatory Review
Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application $2,500 $2,200 Service Agreenient
- Individual or Class EA- $8,000 Standard
Schedule/Category B &C $13,500 Major
(note:EA Service Dettsew°h assscies
three sshcitsstossC
Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application $1,080 $1,200 Service Agreenient
- Class EA- Schedule/Category A (or $2,500 Minor
equivalent) $3,800 Major
(note:EA Service Delivery assscies two
sshcitsstoss)
Routine Infrastructure Works - Letter of $310 plans only $350 Service Agreenient
Approval $630 technical reports $750 Minor
(note: EA Service Delivery assscies two or site visit $1,400 Major
sshcitsstossC
Emergency Works $3,540 $4,120
(to he added to the ahhttcahte hew°sitt or
detailed design review tees)
32he4tte4 Peview 25%of cuuiruireint fee Wiitlll"lnliiin 2
Chew°sshcitsston, to he added to the weelllks of sulll uisliissliiouim
ahhttcahte hermit or detailed hestgs 50%of cuuiruireint fee w'ltlll"lnliiin .'I
review tees) weelk of sulll uisliissliiouim
ddiiitiiiounalll III''°lesliiev III' ees
Permit Screening $250 $255
Peview of works tow°application of
Section 35 of the Fisheries Act.
DFO 3"shcitsstos (H ADD related $3,000
projects osthC
(note: EA Service Delivery assscies two
sshcitsstossC
Page 2 of 5
114
APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE I IIIII III iIIII' IIII IIIIC ""'1111""'IOIIII
.l"PC Property&Archaeology $1,500
Subnitsston (project nianaPenient ttnie
only(
Fish Timing Window Extension $5,200 $5,500
Additional Site Visit Charges up to 1/2 day $630 up to 12 daft $700
(First site review is allowed as part of up to 1 day $1,250 up to '1 dap $1,400
processing)
Red Line Revisions by TRCA $510 $550 Minor
`1,`100 Major
Additional Subnitsstons 25%low°each additional
snPnitsston
GIS Fee Direct charge to non- Direct charge to non-levy
levy partners through partners through GIS
GIS
Permit Revisions and Reissuances
Revision to Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit 25%of current fee- 25%of current fee- minor
(note: EA Service Delivery assnnies two minor change change
snPnitsstons( 50%of current fee- 50%of current fee- major
major change change
Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Pelssnance 25%of current fee 25%of current fee
(one ttnie only(
Coni llance Monitoring
Pernilt Non Conipttance $2,200 (Fee to resolve
each issue, exclusive of
pernilt revision lee(
Environmental ManaPenient Plan "'l°"l5C subject to
Conipllance negotiation
Coni llance Pe ores Clearance t..et°ter $150
Page 3 of 5
115
4, TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for
G rrrrtrr�wrc'a A�w€�RE�'��ao�w'�w--•
onservation Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services
for The Living City IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
October 14, 2011
NOTES
1. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. Applications will not
be processed until fees are received.
2. Only one set of fees apply when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. an EA
Property Screening or Inquiry or an Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application). The highest rate of fees
applies.
3. TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater
level of effort (e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required
for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant.
4. All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit.
5. Specific Municipal Service Delivery Agreements take precedent over the fee schedule.
6. For the Class Environmental Assessment Act Applications, the schedules or categories specific to
the respective class EA document or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards
or commissions, including Enbridge, Consumers Gas or Bell Canada, will be applied.
Rou't'ine In'fras'truc't'ure Works l 111 111 ca'l'liioin reV4w is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.
8. Emergency Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.
9... Minor project review means that no or limi't'ed't'echnical Natural Heri't'age Impact S't'udies or
report's are required as pail of the submission, 't'oge't'her ma't'h de't'ailed design drawings if
appropria't'e; In't'ermedia't'e project review means that scoped 't'echnical Natural Heri't'age
Impact S't'udies or report's are required as part of the submission (such as hydrology,
ecological, stogy nimiatep(P together with detailed design dramangs if appropriate; Major project
review means that comprehensive 't'echnical Natural Heri't'age Impact S't'udies or repoils are
required as pail of the submission (such as meanderbelt, hydorgeology, geo't'echnical(P
together math de't'ailed design drawings if appropria't'e.
10. In accordance with the Crown Agency Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 48,s.1, and the Conservation Authorities
Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 27 the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the
Conservation Authorities Act:
• Go Transit
• Hydro One
• Ministry of Transportation
• Ontario Realty Corporation
• Ministry of Natural Resources
• Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and
• Downsview Park
As such, these proponents are exempt from review fees and exempt from the TRCA regulatory
approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required).
However, in circumstances where the review is considered major,TRCA can negotiate funding to
compensate for its review time. These proponents may not be exempt from approvals under the
Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and are responsible for obtaining the
appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental
Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. EA 8,s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA
throughout the EA process.
10. The following corporations are not exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act:
• Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC)
• CN Rail, and
• CP Rail
As such,these proponents are not exempt from review fees or the TRCA regulatory approval
Page 4 of 5
116
process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ont. Reg. 166/06 are required). In accordance with
agreements between TRCA and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Natural
Resources, TRCA will also conduct reviews under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.
EA 8, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process.
11. TRCA has extensive environmental and cultural data that is available for use by the proponent,
subject to the waiver of a legal disclaimer and the provision of user fees.Where there are data
sharing agreements in place, municipalities, agencies and Crown corporations or agencies are
exempt from these fees and the data will be provided free of charge. For all others, an application
form for the purchase of such data will be forwarded to the proponent for use at their discretion.
Page 5 of 5
117
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:30 p.m., on Friday, October 14, 2011.
Maria Augimeri Brian Denney
Chair Secretary-Treasurer
/ks
118